Trial reportJournal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society
A Comparative Randomized Crossover Pilot Study Comparing Male External Urine Collection Devices in Home Settings.
Trial report in Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare nighttime urine capture, safety, and participant preference between a male external catheter connected to a vacuum-assisted collection system and a male condom catheter in community-dwelling older men who previously used incontinence products at night.
designProspective, open label, randomized, 2-phase crossover pilot study. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingFifteen older men (≥65 years) requiring nocturnal urine management were enrolled across 2 US outpatient research sites (Greenacres, FL; Hamilton, NJ). Data were collected March-June 2025 in participants' home setting.
methodsParticipants were randomized 1:1 to device sequence and used each device for 7 consecutive nights separated by a ≥2-day washout. Primary outcomes assessed mean nightly urine capture rate (performance) and device-related adverse events requiring medical intervention (safety). Secondary endpoints included device preference, dislodgement, and tolerability, whereas changes in the PROMIS Sleep Disturbance scale before and after the use of each device were captured as exploratory endpoints. Analyses were descriptive with paired comparisons and beta regression for capture rate.
resultsFifteen participants completed both 7 night usage periods. Mean (SD) overall capture rate was 98.5% (1.7) with the study device (MEC) versus 98.1% (2.6) with the comparator (sheath; LS mean difference 0.5%, 95% CI -0.8 to 1.7). No device-related adverse events requiring medical intervention were reported. Device dislodgement occurred infrequently for both devices and was numerically higher for the male external catheter, with events primarily occurring during the first treatment phase and driven by repeated dislodgements in a single participant. Preference favored the study device (13/15, 86.7%). The PROMIS Sleep Disturbance scale decreased (improved) from baseline in both periods (mean change -8.6 and -6.3).
conclusionsIn older men requiring nocturnal urine management at home, the male external urine collection device demonstrated capture performance and safety comparable to a sheath-style catheter, with strong participant preference for the external collection device.
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.