Summary of findings 2. Indwelling urethral catheterisation compared to intermittent urethral catheterisation for short‐term catheterisation in adults.
| Indwelling urethral catheterisation compared to intermittent urethral catheterisation for short‐term catheterisation in adults | ||||||
| Patient or population: Patients with short‐term bladder drainage Settings: Hospital Intervention: indwelling urethral catheterisation Comparison: intermittent urethral catheterisation | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Intermittent urethral catheterisation | Indwelling urethral catheterisation | |||||
| Number of participants with symptomatic UTI | See comment | see comment | Not estimable | 162 (2 studies; not pooled) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | Due to evidence of significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity, we did not pool the results, which were inconclusive (Analysis 2.1). The main source of heterogeneity was the reason for hospitalisation:
|
| Asymptomatic bacteruria | 199 per 1000 |
207 per 1000 (169 to 255) |
RR 1.04 (0.85 to 1.28 | 143 (1610 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low3,4,5 | |
| Number of patients with pain ‐ not reported | Not estimable | ‐ | not reported | |||
| Ease of use for participants ‐ not reported | Not estimable | ‐ | not reported | |||
| Quality of life ‐ not reported | Not estimable | ‐ | not reported | |||
| Cost utility analysis ‐ not reported | Not estimable | ‐ | not reported | |||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1Downgraded one level for study design (Random sequence generation is unclear in 1/2 trials. Allocation concealment is unclear in 1 trial and judged to be high risk for the other. Participants and personnel not blinded.) 2Downgraded two level for inconsistency (see comment). 3Downgraded two level for study design (random sequence generation unclear in 6/13 trials and high risk in 3/13 trials; allocation concealment unclear in 4/13 trials and high risk in 4/13 trials; participants and personnel not blinded)
4Downgraded one level for imprecision as 95% Confidence Interval is wide (0.85 to 1.28) and crosses the line of no effect.
5Downgraded one level for publication bias (There was some evidence of publication bias on interpretation of the funnel plot, as trials with low sample size or negative results were not represented)