ReviewSpinal cord series and cases2020
The evidence supporting single-use intermittent catheters in people with spinal cord injury.
Review in Spinal cord series and cases, 2020. 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 4 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.
Continence Care Registry (ConCaRe™)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patterns of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction management and associated factors among Chinese community-dwelling individuals with spinal cord injury.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cross-sectional internet survey exploring symptomatic urinary tract infection by type of urinary catheter in persons with spinal cord lesion in Japan.Spinal cord series and cases · 2023Article
- Intermittent catheterization: A patient-centric approach is key to optimal management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction.Frontiers in urology · 2023Article
- Intermittent Catheters: To reuse or not.Spinal cord series and cases · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intermittent catheterization (IMC) is the accepted evidence-based best practice for bladder management in people with voiding dysfunction due to neurogenic bladder. The two methods for performing IMC over the decades since this practice was introduced are reuse and single-use catheters. There are perceived advantages and disadvantages of each method of performing IMC. There is considerable evidence that single-use IMC is associated with better health outcomes, including reduced risk of urinary tract infection, urethral trauma, and quality of life. People performing IMC also indicate a preference for single-use, although there are advantages of reuse that need to be acknowledged. Ideally, further research is needed in this area, particularly around the washing and storage of reuse catheters, as well as an adequately powered multicenter RCT comparing reuse with single-use IMC, but there are numerous challenges associated with progressing this research.
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.