Trial reportBMJ open2017
Reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections in hospitals: study protocol for a multi-site randomised controlled study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of quality improvement interventions to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in the hospital setting: a systematic review.BMJ quality & safety · 2022Pooled it
- Nurses' Adherence to the Portuguese Standard to Prevent Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTIs): An Observational Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2023Article
- Pharmaceutical Incompatibility of Lubricating Gel Formulation Reduces Antibacterial Activity of Chlorhexidine Gluconate: In Vitro Study in Northern Thailand.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Effect of Cluster Nursing Based on Risk Management Strategy on Urinary Tract Infection in Patients With Severe Craniocerebral Injury.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite advances in infection prevention and control, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) are common and remain problematic. A number of measures can be taken to reduce the risk of CAUTI in hospitals. Appropriate urinary catheter insertion procedures are one such method. Reducing bacterial colonisation around the meatal or urethral area has the potential to reduce CAUTI risk. However, evidence about the best antiseptic solutions for meatal cleaning is mixed, resulting in conflicting recommendations in guidelines internationally. This paper presents the protocol for a study to evaluate the effectiveness (objective 1) and cost-effectiveness (objective 2) of using chlorhexidine in meatal cleaning prior to catheter insertion, in reducing catheter-associated asymptomatic bacteriuria and CAUTI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A stepped wedge randomised controlled trial will be undertaken in three large Australian hospitals over a 32-week period. The intervention in this study is the use of chlorhexidine (0.1%) solution for meatal cleaning prior to catheter insertion. During the first 8 weeks of the study, no hospital will receive the intervention. After 8 weeks, one hospital will cross over to the intervention with the other two participating hospitals crossing over to the intervention at 8-week intervals respectively based on randomisation. All sites complete the trial at the same time in 2018. The primary outcomes for objective 1 (effectiveness) are the number of cases of CAUTI and catheter-associated asymptomatic bacteriuria per 100 catheter days will be analysed separately using Poisson regression. The primary outcome for objective 2 (cost-effectiveness) is the changes in costs relative to health benefits (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) from adoption of the intervention. DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant conferences.A dissemination plan it being developed. Results will be published in the peer review literature, presented at relevant conferences and communicated via professional networks. ETHICS: Ethics approval has been obtained. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 12617000373370, approved 13/03/2017. Protocol version 1.1.
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.