ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparison of Urinary Tract Infection Rates Associated with Different Catheterization Methods Following Major Pelvic or Abdominal Surgery: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative bladder drainage is commonly required following major pelvic or abdominal surgery. Existing evidence indicates substantial variation in urinary tract infection (UTI) risk across different catheterization methods. However, the comparative effectiveness of indwelling Foley catheterization (IFC), suprapubic catheterization (SPC), and intermittent catheterization (IC) remains uncertain.
methodsWe conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare UTI incidence associated with different urinary drainage methods, including IFC, SPC, and IC. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify eligible RCTs published from January 2010 to November 2025. Trials comparing at least two of the three catheterization routes following major pelvic or abdominal surgery were included. The primary outcome was the rate of UTI. A Bayesian network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was conducted using the gemtc package in R 4.5.1 and RStudio2026.01.0. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.
resultsTen RCTs involving 1242 patients met the eligibility criteria. Both IC and SPC demonstrated a reduced risk of UTI compared with IFC. Based on indirect evidence, SPC was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in postoperative UTI compared with IC, with considerable uncertainty in the effect estimate (OR = 0.53, 95% CrI 0.09-2.69). Overall, IC and SPC showed favorable trends in reducing catheter-related complications compared with IFC.
conclusionsThis network meta-analysis suggests that SPC and IC may be more effective than IFC in reducing the risk of postoperative UTI following major pelvic or abdominal surgery. However, further high-quality randomized controlled trials that integrate urinary drainage methods with bladder rehabilitation interventions are needed to identify the optimal management strategy for this patient population.
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.