ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
Regional variation in urinary catheter use in the Netherlands from 2012 to 2021: a population-based cohort.
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 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.
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.
- Decision-Making Process of Healthcare Providers Regarding Catheterization Method: A Nationwide Survey Study.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Article
- Trends of Urinary Catheterization in Korea From 2010 to 2021: Population Based Data Analysis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Patient satisfaction, quality of life, and catheter-related complications in long-term urinary catheter users: a nationwide survey.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- [Regional variation in urinary catheter use in the Netherlands: a population-based cohort from 2012 to 2021].Tijdschrift voor urologie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate trends and regional differences in the use of indwelling and intermittent urinary catheters in the community setting in the Netherlands from 2012 to 2021. Design and methods: For this population-based cohort study, data on catheter use was collected from the Drug and Medical Devices Information System of the National Healthcare Institute of the Netherlands. This database contains information on the Dutch insured population, which was 100% of the total population in 2018. Users were divided into 12 provinces according to the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics codes. The number of catheter users was adjusted for the total population of the provinces by sex and age, and was expressed by users per 100,000 people. Negative binomial regression (NBR) was used to test for differences in clean intermittent catheter (CIC) and indwelling catheter (IDC) users across Dutch provinces. Results: Between 2012 and 2021, IDC users increased by 44.6% from 41,619 to 60,172, and CIC users increased by 27.3% from 34,204 to 43,528. The greatest increases were mainly observed among IDC users over 85 years old and male CIC users over 65 years old. NBR showed significant differences for IDC and CIC users between the 12 provinces. CIC incidence was higher in Drenthe and Groningen (Northern Netherlands) compared to Zuid-Holland (Southern Netherlands). IDC incidence was higher in seven provinces dispersed throughout the Netherlands compared to Noord-Holland. Conclusion: CIC and IDC users have continued to increase in recent years; this was especially observed among older men. In addition, there were regional differences in the number of CIC and IDC users; CIC was more prominent in the northern region of the Netherlands, and IDC varied between multiple provinces. Practice variation in urinary catheterization may result from patient population differences or healthcare provider preferences and their alignment with guidelines.
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.