Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24436671›Full record

ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2013

Urinary catheter management.

Samantha Hendren

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Effect ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samantha HendrenDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Improving Rectal Cancer Surgery Through Regional CollaborationK07CA163665 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HENDREN, SAMANTHA KATHLEEN · 2012 to 2015
$700k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA163665
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After colorectal resection surgery, early urinary catheter removal has been promoted as a part of the national Surgical Care Improvement Project. However, the decrease in urinary tract infection expected with this strategy must be balanced against an increased risk for urinary retention. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to summarize the evidence for and against early postoperative urinary catheter removal. For nonpelvic colorectal resection, the evidence supports removal of the catheter on postoperative day 1 for patients who are not at high risk for urinary retention, including patients with thoracic epidurals. For mid-to-low rectal surgery, the risk of urinary retention is increased, and catheter removal on day 3 to day 6 is recommended; however, the exact timing of removal cannot be recommended based on current studies.

Indexed as

colorectal surgerypostoperative careurinary catheterization

Identifiers

PMID24436671
PMCPMC3747286
OpenAlexW1992997742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.