Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intermittent catheterisation is a commonly recommended procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying. There are now several designs of intermittent catheter (e.g. different lengths, 'ready to use' presentation) with different materials (e.g. PVC-free) and coatings (e.g. hydrophilic). The most frequent complication of intermittent catheterisation is urinary tract infection (UTI), but satisfaction, preference and ease of use are also important to users. It is unclear which catheter designs, techniques or strategies affect the incidence of UTI, which are preferable to users and which are most cost effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare one type of catheter design versus another, one type of catheter material versus another, aseptic catheterisation technique versus clean technique, single-use (sterile) catheters versus multiple-use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation versus catheterisation by others and any other strategies designed to reduce UTI and other complications or improve user-reported outcomes (user satisfaction, preference, ease of use) and cost effectiveness in adults and children using intermittent catheterisation for incomplete bladder emptying. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 September 2013), 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reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, and we attempted to contact other investigators for unpublished data or for clarification.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 (RCTs) or randomised cross-over trials comparing at least two different catheter designs, catheterisation techniques or strategies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived for each outcome where possible. For continuous variables, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome. Because of trial heterogeneity, it was not always possible to combine data to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one trials met the inclusion criteria, including 13 RCTs and 18 cross-over trials. Most were small (less than 60 participants completed), although five trials had more than 100 participants. There was considerable variation in length of follow-up and definitions of UTI. Participant dropout was a problem for several trials, particularly where there was long-term follow-up to measure incidence of UTI. Fifteen trials were more than 10 years old and focused mainly on comparing different catheterisation techniques (e.g. single versus multiple-use) on clinical outcomes whereas, several more recent trials have focused on comparing different types of catheter designs or materials, especially coatings, and user preference. It was not possible to combine data from some trials owing to variations in the catheters tested and in particular the catheter coatings. 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 reliably ruled out. No study assessed cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite a total of 31 trials, there is still no convincing evidence that the incidence of UTI is affected by use of aseptic 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. Results from user-reported outcomes varied. The current research evidence is weak and design issues are significant. More well-designed trials are strongly recommended. Such trials should include analysis of cost-effectiveness because there are likely to be substantial differences associated with the use of different catheter designs, catheterisation techniques and strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".