Recent technological advancements in the treatment of enuresis. Theory and commercial devices.

Mountjoy et al. (1984) wrote a narrative review. They looked at how bed-wetting alarms had changed over time.

The authors used operant ideas to judge each device. They asked: Does it sense wetness right away? Does it make a loud, clear sound? Can the child turn it off alone?

The paper lists no new data. It only maps the tech that was on the market in 1984.

Still, it gives a short checklist you can use today when you pick an alarm.

Mahoney et al. (1971) came first. They showed that a loud buzzer, used the moment a child wet, could teach toileting fast. Mountjoy et al. (1984) later turned that idea into a buyer’s guide.

Libero et al. (2016) looked back at twelve studies. They found alarms help kids with IDD stay dry in the day, but only when you also add rewards and scheduled bathroom trips. The 1984 tech rules still hold; they just need extra support.

Mruzek et al. (2019) tested a phone app with a sensor. The app gave an instant sound, just as T et al. wanted, yet the trial found no big win over standard teaching. The hardware works; the teaching package around it still matters.

You can still use the 1984 checklist. Pick an alarm that triggers right away, is loud enough, and lets the child press reset. Then pair it with praise, stickers, or treats and a set potty schedule. The device is only one piece; your teaching plan makes it work.