ArticleBJUI compass2025
How to clean a catheter: Development of an intervention for intermittent catheter reuse.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An economic evaluation of the MultICath randomised controlled trial, comparing combined use of reusable and single-use intermittent catheters to single-use catheters only.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- How to clean a catheter: Development of an intervention for intermittent catheter reuse.BJUI compass · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Much intermittent catheterisation (IC) is carried out using single-use catheters. Waste and costs could be reduced by cleaning and reusing catheters, but is it safe to do so? To answer these questions of safety and sustainability, clinical trials are needed. In this study, we developed a user-tested catheter cleaning method and training materials for use in a clinical trial. Methods: Focus groups selected candidate cleaning methods and developed draft instructions. Users then home tested these methods on uncoated, plastic-based catheters, which were cleaned and reused up to 28 times. Reused and cleaned catheters were analysed using advanced microbiological analysis methods. The refined cleaning method was further tested by a naïve user panel. Additionally, a silicone catheter designed for reuse was tested in the laboratory and for user acceptability. User panel feedback was gathered throughout testing and thematically analysed. Results: Twenty-six IC users were recruited to three user panels. Focus groups identified soap and water (SW) and soap and water plus a 15-minute soak in a chlorine-based cleaning solution (SW-Cl) as the preferred cleaning methods. User testing (≤3 reuses) and laboratory analysis showed SW alone to be less effective than SW-Cl: bacteria were detected in 23/120 (19%) male and 56/108 (52%) female SW samples versus 16/228 (7%) and 16/201 (8%) for SW-Cl. Bacteria were detected in only 1/240 (<0.5%) of catheter samples after 8-≥28 reuses with the SW-Cl method. Naïve user panel results were similar. The silicone catheter was acceptable to users and had comparable laboratory results using SW-Cl. User panel feedback informed refinement and simplification of the SW-Cl cleaning method and instructions. Conclusion: A chlorine-based method for cleaning catheters, which effectively removed bacteria from catheters reused multiple times, has been developed, tested and refined by users, and captured in an instruction booklet and video for inclusion in a clinical trial.
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.