Clean intermittent catheterization: Single use vs. reuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intermittent catheterization (IC) is one of the fundamental aspects of managing patients with chronic urinary retention. Although reuse of catheters has been allowed to be chosen as the first option for IC, the optimal method of IC and the type of catheter has been a long-standing debate. We conducted a literature review regarding risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) and the costs associated with different methods and catheters. METHODS: A MEDLINE search via PubMed, EMBASE, and EBSCO host was conducted in March 2018. The date of publication was limited to 2014 to present/current. RESULTS: Single use of catheters (hydrophilic-coated [HC] or uncoated [UC]) was considered to impose a lower risk of UTI in all studies, except in one study that included children, but did not test their dexterity to handle HC catheters. Cost-effectiveness of single-use catheters was confirmed by all studies during this period. CONCLUSIONS: Reuse of catheters exposes the patient to a plethora of possible cleaning techniques and duration of catheter use. Patient adherence to cleaning method cannot be predicted and this further amplifies the risk of complications and their burden on the healthcare system. We recommend a patient-centred approach to consider HC catheters as the first option, while considering the patient's/caregiver's ability to accommodate the usage technique. Single-use UC catheters, and finally reuse of catheters are considered as next options if HC catheters are found difficult to handle (especially in children doing self-catheterization). Larger trials investigating this matter are required.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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, 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".