A scoping review on the impact of hydrophilic versus non-hydrophilic intermittent catheters on UTI, QoL, satisfaction, preference, and other outcomes in neurogenic and non-neurogenic patients suffering from urinary retention

Table 2 Satisfaction evidence level

Population	Evidence Pro/con HCIC	Original studies (n)	Reviews (n)	LoE
SCI	+ +/−	5	1	2A-3B
SB	+/− −	5	NA	2B
MS	NA	NA	NA	NA
BPH	+/−	NA	NA	NA
Mixed	+ + +/−	9	8	1A-2B
All	+ + +/−	19	9	1A-2B

Bold text is a summary of the total evidence level of the pathologies
BPH Benign prostate hypertrophy, HCIC Hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters, LoE Level of evidence, MS Multiple sclerosis, NA Not available, SB Spina bifida, SCI Spinal cord injury
+ to + + +: The literature supports claims of hydrophilic catheters as being superior to uncoated catheters
− to − − No significant difference between hydrophilic and uncoated catheters or uncoated catheters are superior
1, 2, and 3 refer to the (descending) level of evidence. A = systematic review/meta-analysis; B = clinical trial

ISSN: 1471-2490