Cochrane · systematic review · CD004203
Urethral (indwelling or intermittent) or suprapubic routes for short‐term catheterisation in hospitalised adults
Kidd, EA, Stewart, F, Kassis, NC, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · 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
18
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
11
Included studies
NR
No studies 11 · 61.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 27.8%Low 2 · 11.1%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
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
Indwelling urethral catheterisation compared to suprapubic catheterisation for short‐term catheterisation in adults
Population: Adults with short‐term catheterisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants with symptomatic UTI Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs suprapubic catheterisation | RR 1.01 [0.61, 1.69] | 5 studies · 575 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Asymptomatic bacteruria Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs suprapubic catheterisation | RR 2.25 [1.63, 3.1] | 19 studies · 2316 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Number of participants with pain Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs suprapubic catheterisation | RR 5.62 [3.31, 9.55] | 4 studies · 535 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Ease of use for participants ‐ not reported Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs suprapubic catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life ‐ not reported Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs suprapubic catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost utility analysis ‐ not reported Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs suprapubic catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Indwelling urethral catheterisation compared to intermittent urethral catheterisation for short‐term catheterisation in adults
Population: Patients with short‐term bladder drainage
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants with symptomatic UTI Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 162 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Asymptomatic bacteruria Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | RR 1.04 | 143 studies · 1610 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of patients with pain ‐ not reported Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ease of use for participants ‐ not reported Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life ‐ not reported Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost utility analysis ‐ not reported Indwelling urethral catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Suprapubic catheterisation compared to intermittent urethral catheterisation for short‐term catheterisation in adults
Population: patients with short‐term catheterisation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants with symptomatic UTI Suprapubic catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | RR 1.67 [0.68, 4.1] | 1 study · 72 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, publication bias |
Asymptomatic bacteruria Suprapubic catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of patients with pain Suprapubic catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Ease of use for participants ‐ not reported Suprapubic catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life ‐ not reported Suprapubic catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost utility analysis ‐ not reported Suprapubic catheterisation vs intermittent urethral catheterisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |