Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25208303›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management.

Jacqui Prieto, Catherine L Murphy, Katherine N Moore, Mandy Fader

Retracted 3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02961114 phase1 / phase2withdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Use of Autologous Adipose-Derived Stem/Stromal Cells In Symptomatic Benign Prostate Hypertrophy

TypeinterventionalSponsorRobert W. Alexander, MD, FICSRan2019 to 2023Enrolled0ConditionsBPH, Nocturia, BPH With Urinary Obstruction, ProstatismArmsMicrocannula Harvest Adipose, Centricyte 1000, IV Sterile Normal Saline
NCT03424499 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Clinical Trial Using Sterile Single-use and Reused Polyvinylchloride Catheter For Intermittent Catheterization With Clean Technique In Neurogenic Bladder Due to Spina Bifida

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Universitario Dr. Jose E. GonzalezRan2016 to 2021Enrolled113ConditionsNeurogenic Bladder Due to Spina Bifida (Disorder)ArmsSingle-use catheter, Reused catheter, Urine culture
NCT05444504 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness and Acceptability of Two Insertable Device Models for Non-surgical Management of Obstetric Fistula: a Randomized Crossover Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2023 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsObstetric Fistula, Fistula, Fistula, Urinary, Fistula, VaginalArmsCup, Cup+
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. WITHDRAWN: Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Multidrug-resistant Uro-associatedEuropean urology open science · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Clean intermittent catheterization: Single use vs. reuse.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2019
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Clean intermittent catheterization revisited.International urology and nephrology · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jacqui PrietoFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Room AA80, South Academic Block (Mailpoint11), Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK, SO16 6YD.
Catherine L Murphy
Katherine N Moore
Mandy Fader
University of Southampton · GBUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntermittent catheterisation is a commonly recommended procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying. There are now several designs of intermittent catheter (e.g. different lengths, 'ready to use' presentation) with different materials (e.g. PVC-free) and coatings (e.g. hydrophilic). The most frequent complication of intermittent catheterisation is urinary tract infection (UTI), but satisfaction, preference and ease of use are also important to users. It is unclear which catheter designs, techniques or strategies affect the incidence of UTI, which are preferable to users and which are most cost effective.

objectivesTo compare one type of catheter design versus another, one type of catheter material versus another, aseptic catheterisation technique versus clean technique, single-use (sterile) catheters versus multiple-use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation versus catheterisation by others and any other strategies designed to reduce UTI and other complications or improve user-reported outcomes (user satisfaction, preference, ease of use) and cost effectiveness in adults and children using intermittent catheterisation for incomplete bladder emptying. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 September 2013), the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, and we attempted to contact other investigators for unpublished data or for clarification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or randomised cross-over trials comparing at least two different catheter designs, catheterisation techniques or strategies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived for each outcome where possible. For continuous variables, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome. Because of trial heterogeneity, it was not always possible to combine data to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. MAIN

resultsThirty-one trials met the inclusion criteria, including 13 RCTs and 18 cross-over trials. Most were small (less than 60 participants completed), although five trials had more than 100 participants. There was considerable variation in length of follow-up and definitions of UTI. Participant dropout was a problem for several trials, particularly where there was long-term follow-up to measure incidence of UTI. Fifteen trials were more than 10 years old and focused mainly on comparing different catheterisation techniques (e.g. single versus multiple-use) on clinical outcomes whereas, several more recent trials have focused on comparing different types of catheter designs or materials, especially coatings, and user preference. It was not possible to combine data from some trials owing to variations in the catheters tested and in particular the catheter coatings. Where there were data, confidence intervals around estimates were wide and hence clinically important differences in UTI and other outcomes could neither be identified nor reliably ruled out. No study assessed cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDespite a total of 31 trials, there is still no convincing evidence that the incidence of UTI is affected by use of aseptic or clean technique, coated or uncoated catheters, single (sterile) or multiple-use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation or catheterisation by others, or by any other strategy. Results from user-reported outcomes varied. The current research evidence is weak and design issues are significant. More well-designed trials are strongly recommended. Such trials should include analysis of cost-effectiveness because there are likely to be substantial differences associated with the use of different catheter designs, catheterisation techniques and strategies.

Indexed as

Urinary CathetersAdultChildEquipment ReuseFemaleHumansMalePatient DropoutsUrinary CatheterizationUrinary RetentionUrinary Tract Infections

Identifiers

PMID25208303
OpenAlexW1523740154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.