Author
Listed:
- Michelle Beattie
- Julie Taylor
Abstract
Aims and objectives. This systematic review aimed to determine whether there was enough evidence to conclude that silver‐alloy urinary catheters reduce catheter‐associated urinary tract infections compared with silicone or latex urinary catheters in adult inpatients. Background. Previous systematic reviews into the effectiveness of silver‐coated urinary catheters have offered limited opportunity to transfer their findings into practice. These studies have been on North American products only, of generally poor quality, or several years since their completion (Brosnahan J, Jull A & Tracy C 2004, Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews, Issue 1, Art. No.: CD004013). Design. A systematic review of the literature was deemed the most appropriate research method to apply as there had already been several studies (Saint S, Veenstra DL, Sullivan SD, Chenoweth C & Fendrick AM 2000, Archives of International Medicine, 160, 2670–2675; Lai KK & Fontecchio SA 2002, American Journal of Infection Control, 30, 221–225; Schaeffer AJ 2005, The Journal of Urology, 173, 845–846) relating to the subject in question, although there were some queries regarding their methodological rigour. Methods. Randomised control trials, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses were identified by searching relevant databases. Relevant papers were judged against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten per cent of papers were assessed by a second reviewer. Following the application of a numerical filtering tool, six papers were rejected and eleven papers were retained. Results. Of the 11 papers retained, there were eight studies, as some studies published more than one paper. The integrated results did present a consistent pattern favourable towards the efficacy of silver‐alloy urinary catheters to reduce catheter‐associated urinary tract infection. Conclusion. The collective evidence divulged an emerging pattern favouring the efficacy of silver‐alloy urinary catheters to reduce catheter‐associated urinary tract infection. Owing to the poor quality of some individual studies included in other systematic reviews and the inability to carry out meta‐analysis because of significant heterogeneity, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from the study. Relevance to clinical practice. Given the significant prevalence of catheter‐associated urinary tract infection, early indications of improved infection rate outcomes using silver‐alloy urinary catheters should not be dismissed.
Suggested Citation
Michelle Beattie & Julie Taylor, 2011.
"Silver alloy vs. uncoated urinary catheters: a systematic review of the literature,"
Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(15‐16), pages 2098-2108, August.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:15-16:p:2098-2108
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03561.x
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:15-16:p:2098-2108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.