Mao 1994.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods |
Study design: RCT Dates study conducted: February 1992‐November 1992 |
|
| Participants |
Population: obstetric ward patients who underwent abdominal surgery (total hysterectomy or salpingo‐oophorectomy). No previous urinary incontinence or infection. No urinary leakage or damage during surgery Country: China Condition for hospitalisation: abdominal surgery (total hysterectomy or salpingo‐oophorectomy) Exclusion criteria: ovarian or cervical conditions were exclusions Surgical wounds too severe Number of participants: 227 randomised; 227 reported Age (mean and SD): not reported Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: not reported |
|
| Interventions |
Group A (n = 114): IUC removal same day Group B (n = 113): IUC removal next day Size and type of catheter used (e.g. Foley 16F): not reported Study definition of short‐term catheterisation (days): not reported Intended duration of catheterisation for each group: Group A (intervention): catheter duration 7 am to 8 pm same day (114) Group B (control): catheter duration 7 am to 6 am next day (113) |
|
| Outcomes | Number of participants who passed urine spontaneously after removal (defined as passing spontaneously = able to pass without dribbling or sensation of incomplete urination, post‐void volume < 100 mL, passing more than a small amount. Any of the above present considered failure to pass spontaneously) Amount of urine passed for first voiding Time to first spontaneous passage of urine Total number of times passing urine within 12 h of removal |
|
| Definition of CAUTI or bacteriuria | Not reported | |
| Sponsorship/funding | Not reported | |
| Ethical approval | Not reported | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Randomisation process not reported |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not reported. Unlikely possible given nature of intervention |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding of microbiological outcome (detection bias) | Low risk | Not reported. Can assume urine samples would have been sent to a lab where the microbiologist would have been blinded |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No evidence to suggest any missing data |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | No evidence to suggest selective reporting |
| Other bias | Low risk | No other sources of bias noted |