Valero Puerta 1998.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: quasi‐RCT Dates study conducted: not reported
Participants	Population: men with benign prostatic hyperplasia undergoing TURP Country: Spain Inclusion criteria: via clinic Condition for hospitalisation (e.g. hysterectomy or TURP): TURP Exclusion criteria: not reported Number of participants: 117 randomised; 117 reported Age (e.g. mean and SD; median, IQR): Group A mean 70 (53‐83); Group B mean 69 (50‐87) Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: Yes. 1 g of ceftriaxone every 24 h for 2 days
Interventions	Group A (n = 55): IUC removal at 48 h Group B (n = 62): IUC removal according to usual care Intervention for each group (e.g. catheter removal, bladder infusion) with times (e.g. midnight catheter removal): Group A: IUC removal at 48 h Group B: IUC removal according to usual care (lack of haematuria) 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: A removal of catheter at 48 h B removal according to usual care
Outcomes	Duration of post‐op hospital stay Duration of total hospital stay Volume of dried tissue Number of men requiring transfusion Number of men with urinary retention Number of men readmitted to hospital
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)	High risk	Participants were assigned to the 2 groups according to the day of the week of their TURP operation
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 that samples were sent to a laboratory where the microbiologist is unlikely to know which patient belongs to the study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No evidence that there was incomplete data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes measured in results were the same as was mentioned in the methods section
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free form other sources of bias