Cochrane · systematic review · CD004013
Types of indwelling urethral catheters for short‐term catheterisation in hospitalised adults
Lam, TBL, Omar, MI, Fisher, E, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
IncontinenceAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
21
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 33.3%Ungraded 3 · 14.3%Very low 1 · 4.8%Low 1 · 4.8%Moderate 2 · 9.5%High 7 · 33.3%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Antispetic‐coated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ silver alloy versus standard Antispetic‐coated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 4241 participants | High |
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ silver alloy versus standard Antispetic‐coated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 4241 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Bacterial resistance towards antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported Antispetic‐coated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Urinary sepsis ‐ not reported Antispetic‐coated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ‐ silver oxide versus standard Number with pain with catheter in place Antispetic‐coated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ‐ silver alloy versus standard Antispetic‐coated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 3718 participants | High |
Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 4297 participants | High |
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 4297 participants | High |
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Urinary sepsis Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 3768 participants | High |
Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter versus antiseptic‐coated catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ antibiotic versus silver alloy Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs antiseptic‐coated catheter | RR 0.84 [0.71, 1] | 1 study · 4250 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs antiseptic‐coated catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ antibiotic versus silver alloy Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs antiseptic‐coated catheter | RR 0.64 [0.48, 0.86] | 1 study · 4250 participants | High |
Urinary sepsis Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs antiseptic‐coated catheter | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ Antimicrobial‐impregnated catheter vs antiseptic‐coated catheter | RR 1.5 [1.32, 1.7] | 1 study · 3708 participants | High |
One type of standard catheter versus another standard catheter for management of short‐term voiding problems in hospitalised adults
Population: Patients with an indwelling urethral catheter of short‐term duration
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Symptomatic CAUTI: with microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard ‐ not reported One type of standard catheter vs another standard catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Bacterial resistance towards the antimicrobial agent ‐ not reported One type of standard catheter vs another standard catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Urinary sepsis One type of standard catheter vs another standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Patient discomfort whilst catheter is in situ Number with burning sensation in urethra ‐ Silicone versus non‐silicone One type of standard catheter vs another standard catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Symptomatic CAUTI: without microbiological evidence ‐ nitrofurazone versus standard ‐ not reported One type of standard catheter vs another standard catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |