Patient-based retrospective studies are most often based on one unique patient cohort from one particular institution. At best, they can give rise to observations leading to future prospective studies and new hypotheses. The study by Pamela Ellsworth et al. [1] is one such study: the patient cohort consisted of a mixture of monosymptomatic and former nonmonosymptomatic bedwetters, some of which were still in treatment, which were then considered to be one category. This kind of approach is not confined to this study; others have also used this approach (e.g. Herzeele [2]). The definition of enuresis, according to the International Children’s Continence Society [3] is: enuresis is both a symptom and a condition of intermittent incontinence that occurs during periods of sleep. According to the European Society for Paediatric Urology/ European Association of Urology, a history is sufficient for the diagnosis. Therefore, successful treatment of daytime symptoms, even with ongoing medication and persistent enuresis, is allowed to be labelled monosymptomatic bedwetting. It could be questioned whether that is acceptable. Is a wellcontrolled diabetic who is receiving medication a non-diabetic? There seems to be a need for a more strict definition, as well as a consensus between scientific societies, about what is meant, in this case, by monosymptomatic and non-monosymptomatic bedwetting. As with many other retrospective studies from particular institutions, the present study cannot be claimed to globalise conclusions. The foundations for the title, conclusion and