Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28073354›Full record

SynthesisBMC urology2017

Intermittent catheterisation with hydrophilic and non-hydrophilic urinary catheters: systematic literature review and meta-analyses.

Carla Rognoni, Rosanna Tarricone

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04924569 (Continence Care Registry), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT04924569 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Continence Care Registry (ConCaRe™)

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorHollister IncorporatedRan2021 to 2030Enrolled600ConditionsNeurogenic Bladder, Non-Neurogenic Bladder
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carla RognoniCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, Milan, 20136, Italy. carla.rognoni@unibocconi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6330-0591
Rosanna TarriconeCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, Milan, 20136, Italy.
Bocconi University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntermittent catheterisation is the method of choice for the management of bladder dysfunctions. Different urinary catheters are available, but there is conflicting evidence on which type of catheter is best. The present study provides an objective evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of different subsets of urinary catheters.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed for published RCTs regarding hydrophilic coated and PVC (standard) catheters for intermittent catheterisation. Separate meta-analyses were conducted to combine data on frequencies of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and haematuria. Two separate analyses were performed, including or excluding reused standard catheters.

resultsSeven studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. The meta-analyses exploring UTI frequencies showed a lower risk ratio associated with hydrophilic catheters in comparison to standard ones (RR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; p = 0.003). Results for the "reuse" scenario were consistent with the ones related to "single-use" scenario in terms of frequency of UTIs. The meta-analyses exploring haematuria were not able to demonstrate any statistically significant difference between hydrophilic catheters in comparison to standard ones.

conclusionsThe findings confirm previously reported benefits of hydrophilic catheters but a broader evaluation that takes into account also patient preferences, compliance of therapy, quality of life and costs would be needed to assess the economic sustainability of these advanced devices.

Indexed as

Urinary CathetersEquipment DesignHematuriaHumansHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsIntermittent Urethral CatheterizationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUrinary Tract InfectionsHaematuriaHydrophilic cathetersIntermittent catheterisationUrinary cathetersUrinary tract infections

Identifiers

PMID28073354
PMCPMC5225586
OpenAlexW2568188811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.