Schiotz 1995.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Dates study conducted: November 1992‐April 1994
Participants	Number of participants: eligible, not reported; 165 randomised; 165 reported Country: Norway Population: women Age (mean and range): overall 65.9 (29.9‐85.2) Inclusion criteria: not reported Condition for hospitalisation: elective vaginal plastic repair surgery (anterior colporrhaphy, anterior plus posterior colporrhaphy or a full Manchester repair) Exclusion criteria: not reported Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: not reported
Interventions	Group A (n = 82): 1 day IUC post‐op Group B (n = 83): 3 days’ post‐op IUC Size and type of catheter used: 12 or 14F Foley catheter, Teflon‐coated Study definition of short‐term catheterisation (days): not reported
Outcomes	UTI Urinary retention Number of patients needing to be recatheterised
Definition of CAUTI or bacteriuria	Cultures were defined as positive when a midstream urine specimen yielded > 100,000 cfu/mL of any organism or a catheter specimen yielded > 10,000 cfu/mL. UTI was defined as a positive culture associated with dysuria, pain, fever or sepsis. Asymptomatic bacteriuria was defined as positive culture in the absence of symptoms. When there was a doubt, participants were defined as having UTI.
Sponsorship/funding	This study was supported by a grant from, Anders Jahre’s Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
Ethical approval	Not reported
Notes	A size 12 or 14 Fr transurethral Teflon‐coated Foley catheter was used for both groups. Post‐catheter removal all participants were encouraged to void spontaneously, those that could not were recatherised. A least 3 urine cultures were taken.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “… randomized by means of a nurse drawing a closed opaque envelope” Comment: no other information reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “…closed opaque envelope” Comment: closed envelopes were used to conceal allocation
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported. Unlikely that participants could be blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of microbiological outcome (detection bias)	Low risk	Not reported. Suggests that urine samples were sent to a laboratory for microscopy and culture. Unlikely that microbiologist knew which patients belonged to the trial
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No withdrawals reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported in methods are reported in full in results
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free from other sources of bias