ReviewCureus2026
Clinical Effectiveness of Tap Water Versus Povidone-Iodine Bladder Irrigation for Recurrent Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections: A Comparative Review of Contemporary Clinical Evidence.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) remain among the most frequent healthcare-associated infections. Increasing antimicrobial resistance has renewed interest in bladder irrigation as a non-antibiotic therapeutic strategy. Tap water and povidone-iodine are two readily available irrigation solutions that have recently been evaluated in prospective clinical studies. A comparative narrative review was undertaken using two prospective clinical investigations published in peer-reviewed journals to compare the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability, and potential role of tap-water and povidone-iodine bladder irrigation in patients with recurrent CAUTIs. Study characteristics, patient demographics, intervention protocols, outcome measures, microbiological findings, safety outcomes, quality-of-life measures, and clinical applicability were compared qualitatively. Both bladder irrigation strategies appear clinically beneficial. Povidone-iodine demonstrated greater reductions in infection-related outcomes but involved daily antiseptic instillation in a narrowly defined neurogenic bladder population. Tap-water irrigation produced moderate reductions in antibiotic use and recurrent urinary tract infections while maintaining excellent patient acceptability and quality of life, suggesting an attractive low-cost strategy suitable for wider implementation. Direct comparative randomized trials are required.
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.