Long-term bladder management by intermittent catheterisation in adults and children
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intermittent catheterisation (IC) is a commonly recommended procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying not satisfactorily managed by other methods. The most frequent complication of IC is urinary tract infection (UTI). It is unclear which catheter types, techniques or strategies, affect the incidence of UTI. There is wide variation in practice and important cost implications for using different catheters, techniques or strategies. OBJECTIVES: To compare sterile versus clean catheterisation technique, coated (pre-lubricated) versus uncoated (separate lubricant) catheters, single (sterile) or multiple use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation versus catheterisation by others, and any other strategies designed to reduce UTIs in respect of incidence of symptomatic UTI, haematuria, other infections and user preference, in adults and children using intermittent catheterisation for incomplete bladder emptying. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 19 June 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2007), EMBASE (January 1988 to June 2007), CINAHL (January 1982 to June 2007), ERIC (January 1984 to June 2007), the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, and we attempted to contact other investigators for unpublished data or for clarification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing at least two different catheterisation techniques, strategies or catheter types. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. For dichotomous variables, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome where possible. For continuous variables, mean differences and 95% CI were calculated for each outcome. Because of trial heterogeneity, data were not combined to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria; all were small (less than 60 participants). There was considerable variation in length of follow-up and definitions of UTI. Participant drop-out was a problem for several studies. Several studies were more than ten years old and outcome measures varied between studies. Where there were data, confidence intervals around estimates were wide and hence clinically important differences in UTI and other outcomes could neither be identified nor ruled out reliably. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent catheterisation is a critical aspect of healthcare for individuals with incomplete emptying who are otherwise unable to void adequately to protect bladder and renal health. There is a lack of evidence to state that incidence of UTI is affected by use of sterile or clean technique, coated or uncoated catheters, single (sterile) or multiple use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation or catheterisation by others, or by any other strategy. The current research evidence is weak and design issues are significant. In light of the current climate of infection control and antibiotic resistance, further, well-designed studies are strongly recommended. Based on the current data, it is not possible to state that one catheter type, technique or strategy is better than another.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".