User:Wdford/sandbox3

Catheters
A 2014 systemic review concluded that using silver alloy‐coated catheters showed no significant difference in incidences of symptomatic Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI) versus using standard catheters, although silver-alloy catheters seemed to cause less discomfort to patients. These catheters are associated with greater cost than other catheters. A 2014 Multicenter Cohort Study found that using a silver-alloy hydrogel urinary catheter did reduce symptomatic Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) occurrences as defined by both NHSN and clinical criteria. A 2011 critical analysis of eight studies found a consistent pattern which supported using silver-alloy urinary catheters over uncoated catheters to reduce infections in adult patients, and concluded that using silver-alloy catheters would significantly improve patient care. A 2007 systemic review concluded that using silver-alloy indwelling catheters for short-term catheterizing will reduce the risk of catheter acquired urinary tract infection, but called for further studies to evaluate the economic benefits of using the expensive silver alloy-catheters. Two systemic reviews in 2004 found that using silver-alloy catheters reduced asymptomatic and symptomatic bacteriuria more than standard catheters, for patients who were catheterised for a short time. A 2000 randomized crossover study found that using the more expensive silver-coated catheter may result in cost savings by preventing nosocomial UTI infections, and another 2000 study found that using silver alloy catheters for short-term urinary catheterization reduces the incidence of symptomatic UTI and bacteremia compared with standard catheters, and may thus yield cost savings.