Blaaskatheterisatie Module 2 Evidence-tabel
Evidence table for systematic review of RCTs and observational studies (intervention studies)
|
Study reference |
Study characteristics |
Patient characteristics |
Intervention (I) |
Comparison / control (C) |
Follow-up |
Outcome measures and effect size |
Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mitchell, 2021 [individual study characteristics deduced from Mitchell, 2021
|
SR and meta-analysis of [RCTs / cohort / case-control studies] Literature search up to Feb 2020 A: Duffy, 1995 B: Carapeti, 1996 C: Fasugba, 2019 D: King, 1992 E: Nasiriani, 2009 F: Webster, 2001 Study design: A: RCT B: RCT C: RCT D: RCT E: RCT F: RCT Setting and Country: A: male veterans in long-term care, USA B: General surgery patients, UK C: Medical and surgical patients, ICU, Australia D: Spinal cord injury rehabilitation inpatients, USA E: Female gynaecological surgery patients, Iran F: Pregnant obstetrics patients, Australia Source of funding and conflicts of interest: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors First author reports personal fees and grants outside the submitted work. |
Inclusion criteria SR: RCTs and quasi-experimental studies evaluating the use of antiseptic, antibacterial or non-medicated agents for cleaning the meatal, periurethral or perineal areas before indwelling catheter insertion or intermittent catheterisation Exclusion criteria SR: not published in English language, focused solely on children (≤18 years), included patients with pre-existing UTIs, or were published in grey literature 6 studies included (1 for comparison A, 5 for comparison B) Important patient characteristics at baseline: N, mean age (I) / N, mean age (C) A: 42, 72.6/38, 70.9 B: 74, 67.5 / 82, 65.3 C: 945, NR / 697, NR D: 23, 32.8 / 23, 27.9 E: 30, NR / 30, NR F: 217, NR / 219, NR Sex: NR Groups comparable at baseline? No indications for incomparable groups |
Describe intervention: A: sterile technique for insertion of the catheter B: 0.3% CHG C: 0.1% CHG solution D: Povidoneiodine solution E: Povidoneiodine solution F: 0.1% CHG solution
|
Describe control: A: clean technique for insertion of the catheter B: Tap water C: 0.9% saline D: Castile soap wipe E: Tap water F: Tap water
|
End-point of follow-up: NR For how many participants were no complete outcome data available? NR
|
1.catheter-associated urinary tract infections Comparison A clean vs sterile 21/38 patients (55%) in the ‘clean’ group developed a urinary tract infection compared to 26/42 patients (62%) in the ‘sterile’ group. The risk ratio was 0.89 (95% CI:0.62 - 1.29). Comparison B cleaning of the genitals C: Thirteen patients (13/697) in the saline group developed a urinary tract infection compared to four (4/945) in the chlorhexidine group. The risk ratio was 4.41 (CI 1.44, 13.46).
Comparison A clean vs sterile Not reported Comparison B cleaning of the genitals B: OR 0.85 [0.30 – 2.40] C: OR 0.40 [0.21 – 0.74] D: OR 0.69 [0.21 – 2.28] E: OR 0.80 [0.22 – 2.97] F: OR 1.13 [0.58 – 2.21]
|
|