Rajan 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Dates study conducted: September 2008‐March 2010
Participants	Number of participants: 200 participants randomised into 2 groups Setting: tertiary teaching institute South India Country: India Population: women undergoing vaginal surgery Age (mean and SD): Group A: 50 ± 18; Group B: 48 ± 2.4 Inclusion criteria: all women undergoing vaginal surgery namely Ward Mayo operation; Manchester repair; vaginal hysterectomy and amputation of cervix Condition for hospitalisation: vaginal surgery Exclusion criteria: all women having pre‐operative positive urine cultures; elevated renal parameters (blood urea > 40 mg/dL, serum creatinine > 1 mg/dL); comorbid illness ‐diabetes; intra operative visceral injury; Kelly’s stitch and consent not given by patient Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: measured but not reported specifically
Interventions	Group A (n = 100): removal of IUC and vaginal pack in 3 h Group B (n = 100): removal of IUC and vaginal pack in 24 h 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: IUC removal 3 h after surgery Group B: IUC removal 24 h after surgery
Outcomes	Number of participants requiring recatheterisation Incidence of UTI Incidence of urinary retention
Definition of CAUTI or bacteriuria	“urinary infections defined as when microscopic examination of the urine revealed pus cells or when urine culture showed growth of pathogenic organisms”
Sponsorship/funding	“No external sources of funding”
Ethical approval	“The study was approved by institutional research board (IRB) of Jawaharlal Institute of Post‐graduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India (EC Ref # 5_ 2008)”
Notes	Declarations of interest: “The authors declare that they have no competing interest”
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “They were randomised into two groups based on a computer‐generated randomization table." Comment: adequate method of randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible given intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of microbiological outcome (detection bias)	Low risk	Not reported. Likely microbiologist would have been blinded as to which samples were in the trial
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No evidence of any incomplete data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes reported in full
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free from other sources of bias