Summary of findings 3. Suprapubic catheterisation compared to intermittent urethral catheterisation for short‐term catheterisation in adults.
| Suprapubic catheterisation compared to intermittent urethral catheterisation for short‐term catheterisation in adults | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with short‐term catheterisation Settings: Hospital Intervention: suprapubic 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 | Suprapubic catheterisation | |||||
| Number of participants with symptomatic UTI | Study population | RR 1.67 (0.68 to 4.10) | 72 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | ||
| 167 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Asymptomatic bacteruria | Study population | |||||
| 359 per 1000 | 187 per 1000 (72 to 485) | RR 0.52 (0.20 to 1.35) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4,5 | |||
| Number of patients with pain | Not estimable | 72 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low6,7 | |||
| 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 two level for imprecision as 95% CI very wide (0.68 to 4.10). 2Funnel plot cannot be used as there are fewer than 10 trials and the evidence was not down‐graded for publication bias.
3Downgraded one level for study design (random sequence generation and allocation concealment unclear in 1/2 trials; participants and personnel not blinded)
4Downgraded two level for imprecision as 95% Confidence Interval is very wide (0.20 to 1.35) and crosses the line of no effect.
5Downgraded one level for inconsistency (There was evidence of statistical heterogeneity as I2 value was 64%
6Downgraded one level for study design (Participants were not blinded and could influence the outcome of interest) 7 Downgraded two level for imprecision as 95% CI very wide (0.68 to 4.10).