Silver alloy-coated catheters were not associated with a statistically significant reduction in symptomatic CAUTI, and are considerably more expensive. Nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters reduced the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and bacteriuria, although the magnitude of reduction was low and hence may not be clinically important. However, they are more expensive than standard catheters. They are also more likely to cause discomfort than standard catheters.

There was some evidence to suggest that alpha blockers increase the success rates of trial without catheter, and the incidence of adverse effects was low. There was some evidence of a decreased incidence of acute urinary retention. The need for further surgery, cost effectiveness and recommended duration of alpha blocker treatment after successful trial without catheter remain unknown as these were not reported by any trial. There is a lack of internationally agreed outcome measures for what constitutes successful trial without catheter. This makes meta-analysis difficult. Large, well-designed controlled trials, which use the recommendations set out in the CONSORT statement, and include clinically important outcome measures, are required.

Patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) often require sedatives which commonly include midazolam and the more recently developed α2-receptor agonist, dexmedetomidine. It was our aim to compare the sedative and clinical effectiveness of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam in adults admitted to ICU, using an objective appraisal of randomized control trials. Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, Cinhal, the United States National Library of Medicine, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched using keywords: 'dexmedetomidine', 'midazolam', and 'intensive care'. These were limited to human studies and adults (>18 yr old). Six randomized controlled trials were found and were critically appraised using a standardized appraisal method. Two papers described the time spent by each intervention group within a specified target sedation range and both found no statistically significant difference between midazolam and dexmedetomidine (P=0.18 and P=0.15). A third paper found no statistically significant difference in the length of time that patients were sedated within a target zone (P=0.445). Two additional pilot studies did not report P values as they were insufficiently statistically powered. A final paper found that, of the eight occasions measured, patients on dexmedetomidine were more often within the target sedation range than patients on midazolam. The sedative benefits of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam remain inconclusive. While some secondary outcomes showed clinical effectiveness of dexmedetomidine, more research is needed to validate the findings of these studies.