ReviewCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2026
Do prophylactic catheter washouts reduce catheter-associated UTIs and blockage compared to standard care in adults with long-term catheters? A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Review in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProphylactic catheter washouts (PCWs) are often recommended to patients with long-term catheters (LTCs) to reduce symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection (S-CAUTI) and catheter blockage. This systematic review summarizes current evidence on the benefits and harms of regular PCWs for adults using LTCs.
methodsA literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL (database inception to June 2024) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing PCWs to standard care, or different catheter washout solutions to each other. The review followed Cochrane Handbook methodology. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Detailed protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024553575).
resultsSeven RCTs were included. The review found lower S-CAUTI rates in saline washout groups (SWGs) than no washout groups (NWGs) (mean difference [MD] -0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.50-0.29; low certainty evidence; p=0.61) and lower S-CAUTI rates in any washout groups (WG) compared to NWGs (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.42-0.32; low certainty evidence; p=0.79). The review found reduced odds of catheter blockage in acidic washout groups (AWGs) than SWGs (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.25-1.03; very low certainty evidence; p=0.06). Airaksinen 1979 also found increased odds of greater encrustation in their NWG compared to their SWG (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17-2.25; very low certainty evidence; p=0.46). The review found that WGs had reduced hematuria incidence (relative risk [RR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.12; moderate certainty evidence; p=0.86) compared to NWGs. Furthermore, WGs had higher EQ-5D-5L scores than NWGs, with SWGs MD -0.056 (97.5% CI -0.022-0.134, p=0.11) and AWGs MD -0.053 (97.5% CI -0.024-0.131, p=0.12), indicating possible improvement in quality of life (QoL).
conclusionsPCWs may have more benefits and less harms than previously thought and could improve patients' QoL. Tailoring washout solutions to patients' needs may be beneficial. International RCTs abiding by SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines are recommended, as most outcomes were of low certainty.
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.