Wyman 1987.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods |
Study design: RCT Dates study conducted: not reported |
|
| Participants |
Number of participants: eligible, not reported; 103 randomised; 103 reported Setting: Derby Country: UK Population: men Age (mean and range): 70.8 (50‐89) Inclusion criteria: men undergoing TURP Condition for hospitalisation: TURP Exclusion criteria: not reported Use of antibiotic prophylaxis: not reported |
|
| Interventions |
Group A (n = 51): removal of IUC between 6 am and 7 am Group B (n = 52): removal of IUC between 10 pm and 11 pm Size and type of catheter used: 20‐22 Fr 3‐way Foley catheter Study definition of short‐term catheterisation (days): not reported Intended duration of catheterisation for each group: A: IUC removal between 6 am and 7 am B: IUC removal between 10 pm and 11 pm |
|
| Outcomes | Urinary retention Time interval between IUC removal and recatheterisation |
|
| Definition of CAUTI or bacteriuria | Not reported | |
| Sponsorship/funding | Not reported | |
| Ethical approval | Not reported | |
| Notes | All participants were catheterised using a 3‐way Simplastic urethral catheter size 20 or 22 French gauge Higher incidence of post‐op retention in patients with pre‐operative retention |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: “Patients were randomized into two 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 this was possible due to the intervention |
| 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 dropouts |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Difficult to judge as report is very short. All outcomes seem to be reported in methods and results section |
| Other bias | Low risk | Appears to be free from other sources of bias |