Evidence
This page contains a snapshot of featured content which highlights evidence addressing key clinical questions including areas of uncertainty. Please see the main topic reference list for details of all sources underpinning this topic.
BMJ Best Practice evidence tables
Evidence tables provide easily navigated layers of evidence in the context of specific clinical questions, using GRADE and a BMJ Best Practice Effectiveness rating. Follow the links at the bottom of the table, which go to the related evidence score in the main topic text, providing additional context for the clinical question. Find out more about our evidence tables.
This table is a summary of the analysis reported in a guideline (underpinned by a systematic review) that focuses on the above important clinical question.
Confidence in the evidence is high or moderate to high where GRADE has been performed and the intervention is less effective or likely to be more harmful than the comparison for key outcomes.
Population: People with a long-term indwelling urinary catheter
Intervention: Antibiotics
Comparison: No treatment
| Outcome | Effectiveness (BMJ rating)? | Confidence in evidence (GRADE)? |
|---|---|---|
Adults with long-term indwelling urinary catheters and ASB | ||
Sepsis/bacteremia | Favors intervention | Very Low |
Antibiotic resistant bacteremia | Favours comparison | High |
Clostridium difficile infection | Favors comparison | Moderate |
Mortality | No statistically significant difference ᵃ | Very Low |
Recommendations as stated in the source guideline In patients with long-term indwelling catheters, the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend against screening for or treating ASB.
Note The guideline committee noted that while very low-quality evidence demonstrated a beneficial effect of antibiotic treatment in people with long-term indwelling catheters, there is high-quality evidence of harms with increased antimicrobial resistance. The overall evidence rating in this table reflects this. ᵃ One observational study did not find a significant association between antibiotics and mortality after controlling for key confounders.
This evidence table is related to the following section/s:
This table is a summary of the analysis reported in a guideline (underpinned by a systematic review) that focuses on the above important clinical question.
Confidence in the evidence is very low or low where GRADE has been performed and there may be no difference in effectiveness between the intervention and comparison for key outcomes. However, this is uncertain and new evidence could change this in the future.
Population: People with a short-term indwelling urinary catheter of < 30 days and ASB
Intervention: Antibiotics
Comparison: No antibiotics
| Outcome | Effectiveness (BMJ rating)? | Confidence in evidence (GRADE)? |
|---|---|---|
People with short-term indwelling urinary catheter (<30 days) and ASB | ||
Sepsis | No statistically significant difference | Very Low |
Death | No statistically significant difference | Very Low |
Recommendations as stated in the source guideline In patients with a short-term indwelling urethral catheter (<30 days), the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend against screening for or treating ASB.
Note The guideline committee noted that many people with a short-term urethral catheter (<30 days) do not develop bacteriuria. They suggest this is due to the removal of the catheter before its onset. The committee also comment that this patient group has a high risk of hospital-acquired infection with antimicrobial-resistant organisms.
This evidence table is related to the following section/s:
Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer