Time needed to perform intermittent catheterization in adults with spinal cord injury: A pilot randomized controlled cross-over study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Intermittent catheterization (IC), considered the gold standard for bladder management for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) with sufficient dexterity, is usually performed using hydrophilic (HPC) or non-hydrophilic (non-HPC) catheters. Currently, there is no evidence on the temporal burden associated with IC with either catheter. Objective To compare both catheters regarding their time requirement for IC and participant satisfaction. Design, setting and participants Twenty individuals with chronic (>1-year) SCI at any spinal segment were randomized to undergo two cross-over assessments within 10 days (i.e., either starting with HPC or non-HPC). We measured time taken to perform IC using a 13 step pre-determined IC protocol (e.g., enter bathroom, wash hands, transfer to toilet, etc.). Furthermore, we assessed user satisfaction of both catheters using a Likert scale (i.e., strongly agree=5, strongly disagree=1). Outcome measures and statistical analysis Time (i.e., for each step and in total) to perform IC and participant satisfaction were compared between catheters using non-parametric statistics, i.e., Wilcoxon rank sign tests. Results are presented as median with interquartile range. Results and limitations Participants using HPCs spent less time to prepare a catheter [15 s (10-20) vs. 41 (20-69), p=0.002] and overall to perform IC [283 s (242-352) vs. 373 (249-441), p=0.01] compared to non-HPCs. Moreover, participants rated the preparation of HPCs to be easier [5 (4-5) vs. 4 (2-4), p=0.047] compared to non-HPCs. The key limitation of this pilot study was the sample size. Conclusions Preparation and usage of HPCs for IC is easier and faster compared to non-HPCs. IC can be a significant temporal burden for SCI individuals. Patient summary We compared coated and uncoated catheters on time needed for intermittent catheterization and user satisfaction in individuals with spinal cord injury. Participants can manually empty their bladder quicker and easier with coated compared to uncoated catheters.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".