Trial to compare mixed-use (multi-use and single-use) intermittent catheter management with single-use management over 12 months (The MultICath Trial): protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evaluating the safety and acceptability of reusing catheters for intermittent catheterisation (IC) is one of the top 10 continence research priorities identified by the UK James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in 2008. There are an estimated 50 000 IC users in England and this number is rising. Globally, both single-use catheters (thrown away after use) and multi-use/reusable ones (cleaned between uses) are used. Using multi-use catheters as well as single-use ones (mixed-use) could bring benefits (eg, reducing plastic waste and patients never running out of catheters) and offer more choice to users. Evidence is needed that mixed-use is at least as safe and acceptable as using only single-use catheters. METHODS: The MultICath Trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial involving 578 participants. The aim is to compare mixed-use catheter management with single-use catheter management over 12 months. Participants are randomised on a 1:1 basis to either mixed-use catheter management, which includes an evidence-based cleaning method for the multi-use catheters (intervention) or single-use catheter management (control). Following randomisation, participants are followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome is at least one episode of microbiologically confirmed symptomatic urinary tract infection with help-seeking or self-help behaviour over the 12-month follow-up period. Laboratory analysis of patient-initiated urine samples is blind. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic use, microhaematuria, visible blood on catheter/in urine, quality of life and health economics. A qualitative sub-study to examine participant experiences using mixed-use is included. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review was undertaken by South Central-Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee and favourable opinion was granted on 12 July 2019 (reference: 19/SC/0334). Written, informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, in the National Institute for Health and Care Research journal library and to participants and the public via a lay summary published on the trial website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN42028483.
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 | 0.042 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.011 |
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".