Sahin 2011.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods |
Study design: RCT Dates study conducted: February 2006‐ January 2008 |
|
| Participants |
Number of participants: eligible, not reported; 66 randomised; reported, not reported Setting: Istanbul Country: Turkey Population: men Age (mean): range: 48‐77 (average 62); A 62.5; B 61.5; C 62 Inclusion criteria: surgical candidates diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia Condition for hospitalisation: TURP Exclusion criteria: cases with > 50 cc of residual urine, central and peripheric nervous system illnesses or diabetes were excluded from the study Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: not reported |
|
| Interventions |
Group A (n = 22): IUC removal on the 1st post‐op day Group B (n = 22): IUC removal on the 2nd post‐op day Group C (n = 22): IUC removal on the 3rd post‐op day Size and type of catheter used: 22F 3‐way Foley catheter Study definition of short‐term catheterisation (days): not reported Intended duration of catheterisation for each group: A: IUC removal on the 1st post‐op day B: IUC removal on the 2nd post‐op day C: IUC removal on the 3rd post‐op day Note: catheter removal criteria were defined as having clear or pinkish urine colour and the absence of haemorrhage. 2 cases from Group A and one case from Group B did not meet these criteria; hence their catheters were not removed on the designated day. |
|
| Outcomes | Recatheterisation | |
| Definition of CAUTI or bacteriuria | Not reported | |
| Sponsorship/funding | Not reported | |
| Ethical approval | Not reported | |
| Notes | We determined criteria for recatheterisation to be development of vesical globe, complaints of excessive irritation and the obstruction of urinary flow due to clotted or non‐clotted bleeding | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: “Cases were randomised into three groups” Comment: method of randomisation unclear |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not reported. Unlikely blinding was possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding of microbiological outcome (detection bias) | Low risk | No microbiological outcomes reported |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No withdrawals or exclusions from the study |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | The methods section mentions that urine analysis was performed however no data on infection or bacteriuria were presented in the results |
| Other bias | Low risk | Appears to be free from other sources of bias |