Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33912247›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology

Urinary catheterization from 1997 to 2018: a Dutch population-based cohort.

Sophie A Berendsen, Tess van Doorn, Bertil F M Blok

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sophie A BerendsenDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, Rotterdam 3015 GD, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5620-3275
Tess van DoornDepartment of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bertil F M BlokDepartment of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur aim was to evaluate the use of indwelling, intermittent and external urinary catheters in neurogenic and non-neurogenic bladder patients in the Netherlands from 1997 to 2018.

methodsData were retrieved from a population-based cohort containing information about the extramural use of medical devices in the insured population in the Netherlands. The insured population increased from 9.9 million people in 1997 to 17.1 million people in 2018 (64-100% of the Dutch population). Users are expressed by users per 100,000 insured people and total users, corrected for the overall Dutch population. The expenditures are corrected for inflation and expressed by total costs and costs per user.

resultsDuring this 21-year period, indwelling catheter (IC) users doubled from 159 per 100,000 people (24,734 users) to 315 per 100,000 people (54,106 users). Clean intermittent catheter (CIC) users increased from 92 per 100,000 people (14,258 users) in 1997 to 267 per 100,000 people (45,909 users) in 2018. Of all users, 20.7% had an associated neurogenic disorder and 44.9% a non-neurogenic disorder in 2018. The total expenditure on extramural use of urinary catheters increased from 27.7 million euros in 1997 to 84.4 million euros in 2018. IC costs increased from 6.0 million euros in 1997 to 6.7 million euros in 2018, while CIC costs rose from 16.4 million euros to 74.6 million euros. Urine drainage bag costs decreased from 17.2 million in 2001 to 5.3 million in 2018.

conclusionsIC use has increased substantially over the past 21 years, despite the fact that CIC use increased as well. It seems that the main driver behind the prevalence in IC and CIC use, is the rise in incontinence care in older patients and the adaption of preferred CIC use in professional guidelines. At least one fifth of all users catheterize due to neurogenic reasons.

Indexed as

external catheterizationhealth expendituresindwelling catheterizationintermittent urethral catheterizationprevalenceurinary catheterization

Identifiers

PMID33912247
PMCPMC8047834
OpenAlexW3156495809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.