Gross 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Dates study conducted: not reported
Participants	Setting: Kentucky Country: USA Population: mixed Age (mean (SD)): 70.3 (11.7) Inclusion criteria: presence of IUC on admission or inserted during rehabilitation programme; age ≥ 18 years; medical order for catheter removal Condition for hospitalisation: stroke Exclusion criteria: not reported Number of participants: eligible, not reported; 45 randomised; 45 reported Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: not reported
Interventions	Group A (n = 26): IUC removal at 10 pm the day the order for removal was written Group B (n = 19): IUC removal at 7 am the day after the order form for removal was written Size and type of catheter used: not reported Study definition of short‐term catheterisation (days): not reported Intended duration of catheterisation for each group: Group A: IUC removal at 10 pm Group B: IUC removal at 7 am
Outcomes	Time to first void Post‐voided residual urine Volume of first void UTI
Definition of CAUTI or bacteriuria	The CCD criteria for UTI provided the defining characteristics to determine the presence of infection on admission to rehabilitation
Sponsorship/funding	Not reported
Ethical approval	“Institutional review board approval was obtained.”
Notes	IUCs had been in place an average of 18.2 days (SD = 19.3), a time interval closely corresponding to the length of time since stroke onset (mean 20.5 days, SD 21.3)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “Subjects were randomized to groups by drawing sealed envelopes indicating group designation.” Comment: unclear as to how randomisation was done
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “…by drawing sealed envelopes …” Comment: adequate method of allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported, unlikely to have been blinded as to which participant belonged to which intervention. Not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of microbiological outcome (detection bias)	Low risk	Urine samples would be sent to a laboratory where the allocation of a participant would not be known
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Recatheterisation data are not presented in the results table 2 (summary of outcomes)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Recatheterisation is mentioned as an outcome in the methods section but it is not represented in the results section.
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free from other sources of bias