Basbug 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Dates study conducted: December 2015‐December 2016
Participants	Population: women Setting: Duzce, Turkey Inclusion criteria: women who were accepted for primary or recurrent elective CS Condition for hospitalisation: elective CS Exclusion criteria: patients with UTI (evaluated by urine examination), severe vaginal bleeding, severe pre‐eclampsia, eclampsia, and any other conditions requiring post‐operative monitoring of urinary output were excluded from the trial. Number of participants: 172 eligible; 136 randomised; 136 reported Age (mean and SD): A 30.13 ± 5.83; B 29.96 ± 4.71 Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: “All patients received 1 g IV cefazolin as prophylaxis”
Interventions	Group A (n = 62): IUC removal 2 h after procedure Group B (n = 72): IUC removal 12 h after procedure Size and type of catheter used: French size 16 silicone‐covered latex Foley catheters Study definition of short‐term catheterisation (days): not reported Intended duration of catheterisation for each group: Group A: 2 h Group B: 12 h
Outcomes	Number of participants requiring recatheterisation Dysuria Asyptomatic bacteriuria Urinary frequency Urgency Length of hospitalisation stay (h) Fever Time to first void (h; mean ± SD)
Definition of CAUTI or bacteriuria	Significant microscopic bacteriuria was defined as ≥ 100,000‐bacteria/mL urine in a midstream sample
Sponsorship/funding	Not reported
Ethical approval	The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Duzce Medical Faculty (IRB No. 000021705, Approval No. 2015/174)
Notes	Recatheterisation was performed if spontaneous micturition was not possible or urinary retention was detected in the suprapubic region by either abdominal examination or measurement of post‐voiding residual (PVR) volume by ultrasound The definition of urinary retention was, lack of spontaneous micturition 6 h after the removal of catheter or PVR volume > 200 mL measured by transabdominal ultrasound
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “Patients were randomly allocated by a computer program in a 1:1 ratio to the early or delayed catheter removal groups” Comment: adequate randomisation method
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “Patients were randomly allocated by a computer program in a 1:1 ratio to the early or delayed catheter removal groups.” Comment: not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Likely blinding not possible for this outcome
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of microbiological outcome (detection bias)	Low risk	Not reported. Assume urine samples were sent to a laboratory where the microbiologist would not know which patients were in the trial
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	‘As‐treated’ analysis carried out. 4/68 participants in 1 group were analysed in the other group but unlikely to have substantial impact
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes seem to be reported in full
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free from other sources of bias