ArticleBMC urology2024
Hydrophilic catheters for intermittent catheterization and occurrence of urinary tract infections. A retrospective comparative study in patients with spinal cord Injury.
Article in BMC urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The efficacy of super-lubricous Foley catheters in indwelling catheterization: a randomized controlled trial.BMC urology · 2026Trial
- An implantable mechano-electro cascade platform synchronizes neuro-muscle repair.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Silent Burden of Urinary Tract Infections in Intermittent Catheter Users with Neurological Disorders: A Scoping Review.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Best Evidence Summary for Evidence-Based Nursing Self-Management in Patients with Neurogenic Bladder Following Spinal Cord Injury.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
- Urinary catheters: state of the art and future perspectives - a narrative review.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurogenic bladder dysfunction is a major problem for spinal cord injury (SCI) patients not only due to the risk of serious complications but also because of the impact on quality of life. The main aim of this study is to compare the rate of urinary tract infection (UTI) associated with hydrophilic-coated catheters versus uncoated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) catheters among SCI patients presenting with functional neurogenic bladder sphincter disorders. METHODOLOGY: This was a retrospective cohort study from 2005 to 2020 including adult male or female patients who have an SCI at least more than 1 month ago with neurogenic bladder dysfunction and were using intermittent catheterization (single-use hydrophilic-coated or the standard-of-care polyvinyl chloride uncoated standard catheters) at least 3 times a day to maintain bladder emptying.
resultsA total of 1000 patients were selected and recruited through a stratified random sampling technique with 467 (47.60%) patients in the uncoated catheter arm and 524 (52.60%) in the coated catheter groups. The three outcome measures, namely: symptomatic UTI, Bacteriuria, and pyuria were significantly higher in the group using uncoated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) catheters compared to hydrophilic-coated catheters at the rate of 79.60% vs.46.60%, 81.10% vs. 64.69, and 53.57% versus 41.79% respectively. Males, elder patients, longer duration, and severity of SCI were associated with increased risk of symptomatic UTI.
conclusionsThe results indicate a beneficial effect regarding clinical UTI when using hydrophilic-coated catheters in terms of fewer cases of symptomatic UTI. Bacteriuria is inevitable in patients with long-term catheterization, however, treatment should not be started unless the clinical symptoms exist. More attention should be given to the high-risk group for symptomatic UTIs.
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.