ReviewCureus2025
Male External Catheters and Urinary Tract Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence and the Need for Standardized Reporting.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients, prompting the implementation of various strategies to reduce their incidence, including the use of male external catheters (MEC). However, the effectiveness of MEC in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs) remains uncertain. This study aimed to systematically summarize existing research and conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of MEC on UTI rates and related outcomes. We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for peer-reviewed articles and clinical trials from inception until June 30, 2024, ultimately including 42 of 1,545 publications in our systematic review, comprising 40 observational studies and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our meta-analysis focused on eight articles with complete methodology and outcomes, revealing a non-significant 27% decrease in UTIs among MEC users (odds ratio 0.73, confidence interval 0.44-1.22) with moderate heterogeneity (I
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.