Evidence Hub

Immediate or delayed trial without catheter in acute urinary retention in males: A systematic review

Veronika Storaker Christensen, Marius Skow, Signe Agnes Flottorp, Hilde Strømme, Ibrahimu Mdala, Odd Martin Vallersnes

BJUI Compass, 2024

642 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Objective: To compare the success of establishing spontaneous micturition following immediate trial without catheter (TWOC) to delayed TWOC in males catheterized for acute urinary retention. Materials and methods: In this systematic review, we included studies reporting success rates of immediate TWOC or delayed TWOC (≤30 days) among males ≥18 years of age catheterized for acute urinary retention. We excluded studies on suprapubic catheterization, postoperative/perioperative catheterization and urinary retention related to trauma. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Open Grey and Clinicaltrials.gov. The search was concluded on 30 November 2022. There were no restrictions on language or publication date. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. We did random-effects restricted maximum likelihood model meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: We included 61 studies. In two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), both with some concerns for risk of bias, including in total 174 participants, the relative success rate was 1.22 (95% CI 0.84-1.76) favouring delayed TWOC. In two comparative cohort studies, both with serious risk of bias, including 642 participants, the relative success rate was 1.18 (0.94-1.47) favouring delayed TWOC. One study was excluded from this meta-analysis because of critically low quality. Four studies…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 642 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