Fader 2001

Methods	DESIGN: Randomised controlled cross‐over trial BLINDING PROCEDURES: SAMPLE CALCULATION: Yes DURATION: 1 week for each of 4 arms WITHDRAWALS/DROPOUTS: None ITT: Not applicable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION: UK SETTING: 7 test centres run by continence nurse specialists
Participants	N = 61 DIAGNOSIS: not stated ELIGIBLE: Not stated ENROLLED: 61 COMPLETED: 61 AGE: Adults GENDER: Male
Interventions	Comparison of 4 hydrophilic‐coated catheters (not activated, water added by user)
Outcomes	Smoothness of catheter removal, severity of sticking and user‐reported satisfaction and ease of use
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Randomisation in Latin squares"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not stated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome and outcome measurement are not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participant‐reported outcome, but risk of detection bias considered low as cross‐over trial
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated
Source of Funding	Low risk	Continence Product Evaluation Network.