Cost‐effectiveness of hydrophilic‐coated urinary catheters for individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify and critically evaluate the economic evaluations examining the cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated vs uncoated catheters for individuals with spinal cord injury. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, the Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Emcare for studies in English and French. There were no restrictions to the year of publication. Our search strategy included the following key terms: "spinal cord injury," "catheterization," and "cost analysis." Results: The search identified 371 studies, of which eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies observed hydrophilic-coated catheters to be cost-effective compared to uncoated catheters. Two studies found hydrophilic-coated catheters to be not cost-effective compared to uncoated catheters and one study estimated that hydrophilic-coated catheters reduced the long-term health-care costs compared to uncoated catheters. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated catheters was dependent on the comparator used, the consideration of long-term effects, and the unit cost of treatment. Further studies are needed to explore the short-term and long-term effects of hydrophilic-coated catheter use on urinary tract infections and clarify the impact of hydrophilic-coated catheter use on long-term renal function. Overall, our critical evaluation of the literature suggests that the evidence is pointing toward hydrophilic-coated catheters being cost-effective, particularly when a societal perspective is applied.
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 | 0.013 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".