Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32797262›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2021

Bladder infusion versus standard catheter removal for trial of void: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Joshua Makary, Kevin Phan, George McClintock, Marinelle Doctor, David Habashy, Sean Heywood, Steve P McCombie, Mohan Arianayagam, Bertram Canagasingham, Richard Ferguson and 6 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Joshua MakaryNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Kevin PhanNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
George McClintockFaculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Marinelle DoctorNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
David HabashyNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Sean HeywoodNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Steve P McCombieNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Mohan ArianayagamNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Bertram CanagasinghamNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Richard FergusonNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Ahmed GoolamNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Mohamed KhadraNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Raymond KoNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Celi VarolNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Matthew WinterNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
Matthew J RobertsNepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0552-7402

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the efficacy and time-to-discharge of two methods of trial of void (TOV): bladder infusion versus standard catheter removal.

methodsElectronic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bladder infusion versus standard catheter removal were performed using multiple electronic databases from dates of inception to June 2020. Participants underwent TOV after acute urinary retention or postoperatively after intraoperative indwelling catheter (IDC) placement. Quality assessment and meta-analyses were performed, with odds ratio and mean time difference used as the outcome measures.

resultsEight studies, comprising 977 patients, were included in the final analysis. Pooled meta-analysis demonstrated that successful TOV was significantly higher in the bladder infusion group compared to standard TOV (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.53-3.8, p = 0.0005), without significant heterogeneity (I

conclusionThe bladder infusion technique of TOV may be associated with a significantly increased likelihood of successful TOV and reduced time to discharge compared to standard TOV practices.

Indexed as

Catheters, IndwellingDevice RemovalUrinary CathetersUrinationHumansUrinary BladderUrinary RetentionBladder infusionMeta-analysisSystematic reviewTrial of void (TOV)Trial without catheter (TWOC)Urinary catheter

Identifiers

PMID32797262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.