An effective evidence‐based cleaning method for the safe reuse of intermittent urinary catheters: In vitro testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine a safe bactericidal cleaning method that does not damage urethral catheters used for intermittent catheterization. In some countries, single-use catheters are the norm; in others, the reuse of catheters is common depending on health insurance, personal preference, or individual concerns about the environment. However, no recent study of cleaning methods has been published to provide evidence for the safe reuse of catheters. METHODS: Using advanced microbiological methods, a laboratory study of eight cleaning methods was conducted. Sections of uncoated polyvinylchloride (PVC) catheters were exposed to bacterial uropathogens in physiologically correct artificial urine media then tested with a range of heat, chemical, and mechanical cleaning methods. Analysis of culturable and viable but nonculturable (VBNC) bacteria was done and direct microscopy was used. Descriptive statistics were used to compare values. RESULTS: Heat treatments, although effective, resulted in catheter surface breakdown and damage. Ultrasonic cleaning and vinegar showed evidence of VBNC populations indicating the methods were bacteriostatic. Detergent and water wash followed by immersion in a commercially available 0.6% sodium hypochlorite solution and 16.5% sodium chloride (diluted Milton) gave consistent bactericidal results and no visible catheter damage. CONCLUSIONS: Combined mechanical and chemical treatment of a detergent and water wash followed by immersion in diluted Milton (the "Milton Method") provided consistent and effective cleaning of uncoated PVC catheters, showing bactericidal action for all uropathogens tested after repeated exposure. If found safe in clinical testing, this method could increase the reuse of catheters, reduce plastic waste in the environment, reduce cost, and increase patient choice.
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 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".