<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Fader M</submitter><funding>National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)</funding><pagination>e088483</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC11367288</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>14(8)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Introduction&lt;/h4>Evaluating the safety and acceptability of reusing catheters for intermittent catheterisation (IC) is one of the top 10 continence research priorities identified by the UK James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in 2008. There are an estimated 50 000 IC users in England and this number is rising. Globally, both single-use catheters (thrown away after use) and multi-use/reusable ones (cleaned between uses) are used. Using multi-use catheters as well as single-use ones (mixed-use) could bring benefits (eg, reducing plastic waste and patients never running out of catheters) and offer more choice to users. Evidence is needed that mixed-use is at least as safe and acceptable as using only single-use catheters.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>The MultICath Trial is a non-inferiority</pubmed_abstract><journal>BMJ open</journal><pubmed_title>Trial to compare mixed-use (multi-use and single-use) intermittent catheter management with single-use management over 12 months (The MultICath Trial): protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC11367288</pmcid><funding_grant_id>RP-PG-0610-10078</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Goudie N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Abouhajar A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Little P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Reading I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Avery MR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wilson N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Macaulay M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Watson G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Timoney A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wilks SA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Guerrero K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>May CR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Clancy B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chadwick TJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cottenden A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Broadbridge J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fader M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dickson S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hagen S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Murphy C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>McClurg D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jones J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Prieto J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Moore M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Khasriya R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Buckley BS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>James CP</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Shields C</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Trial to compare mixed-use (multi-use and single-use) intermittent catheter management with single-use management over 12 months (The MultICath Trial): protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.</name><description>&lt;h4>Introduction&lt;/h4>Evaluating the safety and acceptability of reusing catheters for intermittent catheterisation (IC) is one of the top 10 continence research priorities identified by the UK James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in 2008. There are an estimated 50 000 IC users in England and this number is rising. Globally, both single-use catheters (thrown away after use) and multi-use/reusable ones (cleaned between uses) are used. Using multi-use catheters as well as single-use ones (mixed-use) could bring benefits (eg, reducing plastic waste and patients never running out of catheters) and offer more choice to users. Evidence is needed that mixed-use is at least as safe and acceptable as using only single-use catheters.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>The MultICath Trial is a non-inferiority</description><dates><release>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2024 Aug</publication><modification>2025-04-19T17:26:13.483Z</modification><creation>2025-04-19T17:26:13.483Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC11367288</accession><cross_references><pubmed>39645276</pubmed><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088483</doi></cross_references></HashMap>