ReviewBMJ open2017
Healthcare resource consumption for intermittent urinary catheterisation: cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic catheters and budget impact analyses.
Review in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Intermittent catheter techniques, strategies and designs for managing long-term bladder conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Intermittent Catheters for Chronic Urinary Retention: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2019Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Article
- Silent Burden of Urinary Tract Infections in Intermittent Catheter Users with Neurological Disorders: A Scoping Review.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review and assessment of policies and practices for spinal cord injury-related health care supplies, services, and mobility equipment reveal wide inequities and inadequacies in Canada.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Feasibility study on a new enhanced device for patients with intermittent catheterization (LUJA).Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2023Article
- Intermittent catheterization: A patient-centric approach is key to optimal management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction.Frontiers in urology · 2023Article
- Article
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Emerging Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated urinary catheters for individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review.BJUI compass · 2021Review
- Canadian Urological Association Best Practice Report: Catheter use.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020Article
- Clean intermittent catheterization: Single use vs. reuse.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study presents a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing hydrophilic coated to uncoated catheters for patients performing urinary intermittent catheterisation. A national budget impact analysis is also included to evaluate the impact of intermittent catheterisation for management of bladder dysfunctions over a period of 5 years.
designA Markov model (lifetime horizon, 1 year cycle length) was developed to project health outcomes (life years and quality-adjusted life years) and economic consequences related to patients using hydrophilic coated or uncoated catheters. The model was populated with catheter-related clinical efficacy data retrieved from randomised controlled trials and quality-of-life data (utility weights) from the literature. Cost data (EUR, 2015) were estimated on the basis of healthcare resource consumption derived from an e-survey addressed to key opinion leaders in the field.
settingItalian Healthcare Service perspective. POPULATION: Patients with spinal cord injury performing intermittent urinary catheterisation in the home setting.
main outcome measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (ICER and ICUR) of hydrophilic coated versus uncoated catheters and associated healthcare budget impact.
resultsThe base-case ICER and ICUR associated with hydrophilic coated catheters were €20 761 and €24 405, respectively. This implies that hydrophilic coated catheters are likely to be cost-effective in comparison to uncoated ones, as proposed Italian threshold values range between €25 000 and €66 400. Considering a market share at year 5 of 89% hydrophilic catheters and 11% uncoated catheters, the additional cost for Italy is approximately €12 million in the next 5 years (current market share scenario for year 0: 80% hydrophilic catheters and 20% uncoated catheters).
conclusionsConsidered over a lifetime, hydrophilic coated catheters are potentially a cost-effective choice in comparison to uncoated ones. These findings can assist policymakers in evaluating intermittent catheterisation in patients with spinal cord injury.
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.