Durrani 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Dates study conducted: 1 September 2009‐31 July 2011
Participants	Number of participants: eligible, not reported; 320 randomised; 320 reported Setting: Peshawar Country: Pakistan Population: men Age (mean and SD): 71.32 ± 5.94 Inclusion criteria: patients with bladder outflow obstruction due to benign prostatic enlargement undergoing TURP Condition for hospitalisation: TURP Exclusion criteria: large post‐void urine volume; urethral stricture; patients undergoing simultaneous internal urethrotomy and TURP; comorbidities such as uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, spinal cord problem, cerebro‐vascular accident or any condition that might result in neurogenic urinary bladder; intra‐operative complications like capsular or bladder perforation, severe haemorrhage during or immediately after surgery Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: cephalosporin 1 gm was administered IV at the time of induction of anaesthesia
Interventions	Group A (n = 163): delayed IUC removal (conventional) Group B (n = 157): early IUC removal Size and type of catheter used: 22 Fr catheter Study definition of short‐term catheterisation (days): not reported Intended duration of catheterisation for each group: Group A: removal of IUC after > 1 day post‐op (usually 4th or 5th day) Group B: removal on the 1st day post‐op
Outcomes	Mean catheter removal day Mean length of hospital stay in group Recatheteristaion Mild dilutional hyponatraemia Emergency re‐admission Reoperation, clot evacuation and diathermy of bleeding/oozing points UTI
Definition of CAUTI or bacteriuria	Not reported
Sponsorship/funding	Not reported
Ethical approval	“Written informed consent was taken from all the patients before including them in the study.”
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “Patients were divided into the two groups by randomly selecting from a pile of sealed opaque envelopes containing assignment as A or B group as the patients came and were included in the study.” Comment: adequate method of randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “Sealed opaque envelopes were kept in a box in equal proportion and patients were asked to select one sealed envelope. Fifty envelopes with 25 for each group, A and B, were kept in the box initially and when 10 would remain, another 50 with the same proportions would be added.” Comment: adequate method of concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported. Unlikely participants were not blinded as to when their catheter was removed.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: “The box was kept locked all the time and under the supervision of the principal investigator … a doctor who did not know the actual grouping of patients collected all the data.” Comment: adequate method of blinding of outcome assessment
Blinding of microbiological outcome (detection bias)	Low risk	Not reported. Assumed microbiologist was blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No report number of patients excluded or number of dropouts. All participants who were included in the study completed the study.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes mentioned in methods are reported in results section. Protocol was not available for assessment
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias apparent