SynthesisTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2023
Is It Really the Foley? A Systematic Review of Bladder Management and Infection Risk.
Synthesis in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Materials-based incidence of urinary catheter associated urinary tract infections and the causative micro-organisms: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2024Pooled it
- Urinary Tract Infections in Relation to Bladder Emptying in Patients with Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous suprapubic catheter insertion in spinal cord injury patients.Spinal cord series and cases · 2024Article
- Fever and infections in surgical intensive care: an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee clinical consensus document.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The belief that intermittent catheterization results in fewer infections than indwelling catheters is commonly expressed in the spinal cord injury literature. Some practice guidelines strongly recommend intermittent over indwelling catheterization due to concerns about infections and other complications. However, studies on this topic are of low quality. Guidelines from the Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine suggest the data regarding infection risk are mixed, and they do not recommend one bladder management method over the other. Objectives: To compare risk of bias in studies reporting higher rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) with indwelling catheters to studies that found equal rates of UTI between indwelling and intermittent catheterization, and to describe implications in clinical decision-making. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and SCOPUS databases from January 1, 1980, to September 15, 2020, was conducted. Eligible studies compared symptomatic UTI rates between indwelling and intermittent catheterization. We used a risk of bias assessment tool to evaluate each study. Results: Twenty-four studies were identified. Only three of these reported significantly higher UTI risk with indwelling catheters, and all three demonstrated a critical risk of bias. More than half of the studies reported differences in UTI risk of less than 20% between the two methods. Studies with larger (nonsignificant) differences favoring intermittent catheterization were more susceptible to bias from confounding. Conclusion: The hypothesis that indwelling catheters cause more UTIs than intermittent catheterization is not supported by the scientific literature. Most studies failed to demonstrate a significant difference in UTI risk, and studies with nonsignificant trends favoring intermittent catheterization were more susceptible to bias from confounding. Perceived risk of infection should not influence a patient's choice of catheter type.
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.