SynthesisSpinal cord2021
Catheters for intermittent catheterization: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Urinary Microbiome in Women Using Single-Use Versus Reusable Catheters for Intermittent Catheterization: An Exploratory Substudy of the COMPaRE Trial.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025Trial
- Draining Urinary Sediments Through Conventional Eyelet Catheters and New Intermittent Micro-Hole Zone Catheters.Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses SocietyTrial
- Association Between Bladder Management Strategies and Symptomatic Urinary Tract Infections in Patients with Chronic Spinal Cord Injury: Lessons from a 5-Year Longitudinal Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Guidelines for clean intermittent catheterization in children.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2026Review
- Recent Technological Advances in Monitoring and Neuromodulation of Non-Malignant and Neurogenic Bladder Conditions.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Optimizing Intermittent Catheterization Following Spinal Cord Injury: A Narrative Review Using the WHO Health System Building Blocks Framework.Advances in urology · 2026Review
- Impact of urinary catheters including reusable catheters on quality of life and work productivity in persons with spinal cord lesion.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The urological evaluation and management of neurogenic bladder in children and adolescents-what every pediatric nephrologist needs to know.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Article
- Reduced Sliding Friction of Lubricant-Impregnated Catheters.ACS omega · 2024Article
- Feasibility study on a new enhanced device for patients with intermittent catheterization (LUJA).Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis.
objectivesIntermittent catheterization (IC) is considered the standard treatment for neuro-urological patients who are unable to empty their bladders. The present study aimed to conduct a systematic evaluation and network meta-analysis of all available types of intermittent catheters, and determine which one is best suited for clinical use.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases to identify relevant studies. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Five types of catheters were identified based on the included studies. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was then performed. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve was used to determine the best catheter for each outcome.
resultsA total of 25 RCTs, involving 1233 participants, were included. The pooled odds ratios of symptomatic UTI were lower for two ready-to-use single-use catheters (gel-lubricated non-coated catheter, OR: 0.30, 95% CI 0.095-0.86; pre-activated hydrophilic-coated catheter, OR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.83) as compared to single-use non-coated catheter. In terms of patient satisfaction, the SUCRA results showed that the pre-activated hydrophilic-coated catheter may the preferred option (SUCRA = 82.8%). However, there were no significant differences in all outcome measures between traditional single-use non-coated catheters and clean non-coated catheters.
conclusionReady-to-use single-use catheters are associated with lower rates of UTI compared to traditional catheters. Patients may be most satisfied with the pre-activated one. For traditional single-use non-coated catheters and clean non-coated catheters, there is still no convincing evidence as to which is better. Thus, more well-designed trials are needed.
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.