Cochrane · systematic review · CD006008
Intermittent catheter techniques, strategies and designs for managing long‐term bladder conditions
Prieto, JA, Murphy, CL, Stewart, F, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · 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
15
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
9
Included studies
NR
No studies 9 · 60%Ungraded 1 · 6.7%Very low 1 · 6.7%Low 3 · 20%Moderate 1 · 6.7%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
Aseptic technique compared to clean technique for long‐term bladder management
Population: long‐term bladder management
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number with symptomatic UTI Aseptic technique vs clean technique | RR 1.2 [0.54, 2.66] | 1 study · 36 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse effects (urethral trauma/bleeding/haematuria) Aseptic technique vs clean technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐assessed outcome(satisfaction) Aseptic technique vs clean technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐assessed outcome(preference) Aseptic technique vs clean technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Aseptic technique vs clean technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Single‐use (sterile) catheter compared to multiple‐use (clean) catheter for long‐term bladder management
Population: long‐term bladder management
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number with symptomatic UTI1 Single‐use (sterile) catheter vs multiple‐use (clean) catheter | RR 0.98 [0.55, 1.74] | 2 studies · 97 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Participant‐assessed outcome(satisfaction) Single‐use (sterile) catheter vs multiple‐use (clean) catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐assessed outcome(preference) Single‐use (sterile) catheter vs multiple‐use (clean) catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects (urethral trauma/bleeding/haematuria): Single‐use (sterile) catheter vs multiple‐use (clean) catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness Single‐use (sterile) catheter vs multiple‐use (clean) catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Hydrophilic‐coated catheter compared to uncoated catheter for long‐term bladder management
Population: long‐term bladder management
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number with symptomatic UTI Hydrophilic‐coated catheter vs uncoated catheter | RR 0.89 [0.69, 1.14] | 2 studies · 98 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse effects (urethral trauma/bleeding/haematuria) Hydrophilic‐coated catheter vs uncoated catheter | RR 1.37 [1.01, 1.87] | 3 studies · 400 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant‐assessed outcome (satisfaction) (higher score = greater satisfaction)Scale from: 0 to 10 Hydrophilic‐coated catheter vs uncoated catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 114 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant‐assessed outcome (preference) Hydrophilic‐coated catheter vs uncoated catheter | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 29 participants | Ungraded |
Cost‐effectiveness Hydrophilic‐coated catheter vs uncoated catheter | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |