SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Elevated prostate specific antigen due to indwelling urethral catheterisation: myth or fact? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION &
objectivesProstate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is central to prostate cancer diagnosis, yet values may be confounded by urethral catheterisation. Misinterpretation of PSA rises can prompt unnecessary investigations or delay critical diagnoses. We systematically evaluated what the effect of urethral catheterisation in adult men is on serum PSA levels when compared to pre-catheterisation values.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus through July 2025 was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included adult males with pre- and post-catheterisation PSA values amongst other criteria. Pooled mean differences were calculated with a random-effects model. Study quality was further assessed using the NIH/NHLBI Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group.
resultsOf the 1677 records identified, ten pre-post studies met the inclusion criteria, of which nine were eligible for quantitative meta-analyses comprising 386 patients. Seven studies assessed PSA within 24 h of catheterisation. Pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant mean increase of 0.48 ng/mL (95% CI 0.23-0.74, p < 0.001). For catheterisation lasting 24-72 h, pooled analysis of seven studies similarly showed a significant increase of 0.33 ng/mL (95% CI 0.17-0.50, p < 0.001). Beyond 72 h, the pooled estimates of PSA change were imprecise and statistically insignificant (mean difference 1.70ng/mL, 95% CI -0.92-4.32, p = 0.20). Overall, the nine studies have demonstrated a statistically significant mean increase of 0.69 ng/mL (95% CI 0.35-1.03, p < 0.001). Further subgroup analyses in patients with urinary retention yielded statistically insignificant rises, and patients who did not have retention of urine demonstrated a statistically significant yet minimal mean increase of 0.28 ng/mL (95% CI 0.20-0.36, p < 0.001) that is likely of limited clinical relevance. Most studies were judged to be of fair methodological quality with common limitations including small sample sizes and potential confounding by underlying pathologies, amongst others.
conclusionsIndwelling Urethral Catheter placement for up to 72 h is associated with a statistically significant but clinically small and modest rise in serum PSA. These findings suggest that short-term catheterisation is unlikely to meaningfully distort PSA-based clinical decision-making. However, PSA interpretation in patients with prolonged catheterisation (≥ 72 h) remains uncertain, highlighting the need for further prospective studies to define optimal testing intervals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42370958What 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.