↓ Skip to main content

Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006008.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacqui Prieto, Catherine L Murphy, Katherine N Moore, Mandy Fader

Abstract

Intermittent catheterisation is a commonly recommended procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying. There are now several designs of intermittent catheter (e.g. different lengths, 'ready to use' presentation) with different materials (e.g. PVC-free) and coatings (e.g. hydrophilic). The most frequent complication of intermittent catheterisation is urinary tract infection (UTI), but satisfaction, preference and ease of use are also important to users. It is unclear which catheter designs, techniques or strategies affect the incidence of UTI, which are preferable to users and which are most cost effective. To compare one type of catheter design versus another, one type of catheter material versus another, aseptic catheterisation technique versus clean technique, single-use (sterile) catheters versus multiple-use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation versus catheterisation by others and any other strategies designed to reduce UTI and other complications or improve user-reported outcomes (user satisfaction, preference, ease of use) and cost effectiveness in adults and children using intermittent catheterisation for incomplete bladder emptying. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 September 2013), the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, and we attempted to contact other investigators for unpublished data or for clarification. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or randomised cross-over trials comparing at least two different catheter designs, catheterisation techniques or strategies. Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived for each outcome where possible. For continuous variables, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome. Because of trial heterogeneity, it was not always possible to combine data to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. Thirty-one trials met the inclusion criteria, including 13 RCTs and 18 cross-over trials. Most were small (less than 60 participants completed), although five trials had more than 100 participants. There was considerable variation in length of follow-up and definitions of UTI. Participant dropout was a problem for several trials, particularly where there was long-term follow-up to measure incidence of UTI. Fifteen trials were more than 10 years old and focused mainly on comparing different catheterisation techniques (e.g. single versus multiple-use) on clinical outcomes whereas, several more recent trials have focused on comparing different types of catheter designs or materials, especially coatings, and user preference. It was not possible to combine data from some trials owing to variations in the catheters tested and in particular the catheter coatings. Where there were data, confidence intervals around estimates were wide and hence clinically important differences in UTI and other outcomes could neither be identified nor reliably ruled out. No study assessed cost-effectiveness. Despite a total of 31 trials, there is still no convincing evidence that the incidence of UTI is affected by use of aseptic or clean technique, coated or uncoated catheters, single (sterile) or multiple-use (clean) catheters, self-catheterisation or catheterisation by others, or by any other strategy. Results from user-reported outcomes varied. The current research evidence is weak and design issues are significant. More well-designed trials are strongly recommended. Such trials should include analysis of cost-effectiveness because there are likely to be substantial differences associated with the use of different catheter designs, catheterisation techniques and strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,093,733
of 13,724,474 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,934
of 10,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,183
of 267,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#196
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,724,474 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.