Current Evidence on Intermittent Catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intermittent catheterization is a commonly prescribed procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying not managed by other methods. The most frequent complication of intermittent catheterization is urinary tract infection (UTI). It is unclear what strategies, including sterile vs clean catheters or coated vs uncoated PVC catheters, affect the incidence of UTIs. This systematic review summarizes current evidence on the relationship between sterile single-use catheters or clean reused catheters and the incidence of UTIs. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ERIC were searched, plus the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. Randomized controlled trials comparing at least two different products or methods for intermittent catheterization were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 13 trials that met the inclusion criteria on intermittent catheterization protocols, there was considerable variation in length of follow-up, definitions of UTI, and numbers of subjects. Attrition was a problem for several studies, and all were underpowered. Several studies were more than 10 years old, and outcome measures were imprecise, making it difficult to draw conclusions on the benefit of one catheterization method over another. CONCLUSIONS: There are no definitive studies illustrating that incidence of UTIs is affected by sterile single-use or coated catheters compared to clean reused catheters. However the current research base is weak and design issues are significant. Based on the current data, it is not possible to state that one catheter method is better than another and further research on the topic is strongly recommended.
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
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 | 0.012 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".