Ouladsahebmadarek 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Dates study conducted: 2009‐2010
Participants	Number of participants: eligible, not reported; 200 randomised; 200 reported Country: Iran Population: women Age (e.g. mean and SD): A 37.48 ± 8.85; B 39.48 ± 9.54 Inclusion criteria: elective abdominal hysterectomy or laparotomy for benign pathology (e.g. fibroma, abnormal uterine bleeding, chronic pelvic pain, ovarian cysts) under general anaesthesia; written informed consent Condition for hospitalisation: abdominal hysterectomy or laparotomy Exclusion criteria: patients who had intraoperative bleeding > 1 L; operation length > 2 h, severe endometriosis; dense pelvic adhesions; bladder suspension; underlying medical problems were excluded from the study Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: cefazoline 1 g IV 30 min before surgery started and continued every 6 h until 2 doses
Interventions	Group A (n = 100): Foley catheter removed immediately after surgery Group B (n = 100): Foley catheter removed 24 h after surgery Size and type of catheter used: 14 F Foley catheter with 15 cc balloon Study definition of short‐term catheterisation (days): not reported Intended duration of catheterisation for each group: A 0 h; B 24 h
Outcomes	Operation to discharge duration (days) Time to ambulation (h) Subjective measure of pain Fever (> 38.5 °C) Use of Nelaton catheter (for AUR) Re‐use of indwelling Foley catheter Urethral burn Urine analysis Symptomatic UTI Dysuria at the beginning of urination
Definition of CAUTI or bacteriuria	Mentions symptomatic UTIs but no definition given
Sponsorship/funding	Vice Chancellor for Research, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
Ethical approval	The Ethics Committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences approved the study protocol
Notes	We contacted the trial authors for missing data but no we received no reply.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “The randomization procedure was password protected, web based, using permuted blocks and stratified by study centre and invasive procedure.” Comment: adequate method of randomisation. Randomisation was probably done
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported. Unlikely that blinding is possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not specified
Blinding of microbiological outcome (detection bias)	Low risk	Microbiologists were assumed to be blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All 200 participants completed the trial
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes are accounted for. Protocol was unavailable for assessment
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free form other sources of bias