Evidence Hub

Risk factors for catheter‐associated urinary tract infection among hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies

Fei Li, Meixuan Song, Lin-Xia Xu, Bo Deng, Shifeng Zhu, Xian-Rong Li

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2018

8,785 participants · 86 citations

Abstract

AIMS

The study aimed to identify the risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infection among hospitalized patients. We also tried to explore its potential effect on patient outcomes if possible.

BACKGROUND

Catheter-associated urinary tract infection accounts for a large proportion of healthcare-associated infections and remains a considerable threat to patient safety worldwide.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted an electronic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published between January 2008-January 2018.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers searched the articles and extracted the data independently. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RevMan 5.3 was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving a total of 8785 participants with or without catheter-associated urinary tract infection were included. The average incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infection was 13.79 per 1000 catheter days, with a prevalence rate of 9.33%. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients at high risk for catheter-associated urinary tract infection were female, had a prolonged duration of catheterization, had diabetes, had previous catheterization, and had longer hospital and ICU stays. Additionally, catheter-associated urinary tract infection was also accompanied by an increase in mortality.

CONCLUSIONS…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 8,785 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free