ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2006
[Single-use intermittent catheterisation].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intermittent catheter techniques, strategies and designs for managing long-term bladder conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- WITHDRAWN: Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Voiding dysfunction in women: How to manage it correctly.Arab journal of urology · 2013Review
- [The relevance of catheterization in neurourology].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2012Review
- Long-term follow-up after botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) injection into the detrusor for treatment of neurogenic detrusor hyperactivity in children.Central European journal of urology · 2012Article
- [Diagnosis and therapy of functional disorders of the bladder in persons with diabetes mellitus. What do we actually know?].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2010Article
- [Urological rehabilitation of spinal cord injury patients].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In patients with bladder dysfunctions, intermittent catheterisation is a bladder evacuation technique with a low complication rate. Therefore, it is regarded as the method of choice in the treatment of chronic residual urine, mostly due to a hypo- or acontractile detrusor. Regarding the incidence of urinary tract infections and urethral strictures, aseptic catheterisation seems to be superior to the clean technique. There are, however, no independent, prospective, controlled, randomised, double-blinded studies comparing the different catheter types. Thus, the question of which catheter is the ideal one cannot be answered yet. Predominantly in patients who have to perform intermittent catheterisation for good, the prevention of long-term complications, especially of the upper urinary tract, is of the utmost importance. In the long run, using an inadequate technique and catheters not optimally designed will clearly lead to a higher complication rate. Despite the lower prices of certain catheters, treatment of these complications will lead to higher instead of lower costs. The data available today clearly demonstrate that aseptic intermittent catheterisation is the technique of choice today. Important details of this treatment modality, however, have to be elucidated by prospective studies in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.