ArticleNursing and midwifery studies2015
A comparison between foley and nelatone urinary catheters in causing urinary tract infection in animal models.
Article in Nursing and midwifery studies, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Quality of Life of Patients Living with a Urinary Catheter and Its Associated Factors: A Cross-Sectional Study in Egypt.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A review of the recent advances in antimicrobial coatings for urinary catheters.Acta biomaterialia · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrinary catheterization is one of the main measures used to treat and care for hospitalized patients. Several complications have been attributed to the presence of latex with routine Foley catheters. Therefore, some studies have recommended that Nelatone catheters be substituted for the ordinary Foley catheters to prevent these complications.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) in rabbits catheterized either with Foley or with Nelatone catheters. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted on 60 rabbits that were randomly assigned to three groups of twenty. The first group was catheterized using Nelatone catheter; the second group was catheterized using Foley catheter and the third group was studied without performing any catheterization. After seven days, urine samples were collected using suprapubic aspiration and were sent to the laboratory for culture. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Moreover, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for data analysis.
resultsAt the end of the study, four cases in the Nelatone group and 12 cases in the Foley group presented with UTI (P = 0.01). No positive urine cultures were found in the control group.
conclusionsThe Nelatone catheters, compared with the Foley ones, had a lower risk of UTI in the long term use. Verifying this claim by further studies can have an important role in reducing UTIs in patients using urinary catheters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25830158PMC4377530W2126660093What 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.