1083 CANNABIS (MARIJUANA) USE IN MEN WITH CHRONIC PROSTATITIS / CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN SYNDROME
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyInfections/Inflammation of the Genitourinary Tract: Prostate & Genitalia1 Apr 20121083 CANNABIS (MARIJUANA) USE IN MEN WITH CHRONIC PROSTATITIS / CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN SYNDROME Dean Tripp, J. Curtis Nickel, Katz Laura, Jessica V. Ginting, Ware Mark, and Darcy Santor Dean TrippDean Tripp Kingston, Canada More articles by this author , J. Curtis NickelJ. Curtis Nickel Kingston, Canada More articles by this author , Katz LauraKatz Laura Kingston, Canada More articles by this author , Jessica V. GintingJessica V. Ginting Kingston, Canada More articles by this author , Ware MarkWare Mark Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , and Darcy SantorDarcy Santor Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.1190AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To examine the prevalence of cannabis use among men with CP/CPPS, to estimate the dose size and frequency of cannabis use, and to describe the patient reported indications for its use in this population. METHODS Parallel online and clinic questionnaire surveys were conducted to assess cannabis use among men with CP/CPPS. As a check on study generalizability, comparisons between the online data (n=365) and clinic data (n=60) showed no clinically meaningful differences in the outcome variables of quality of life (QoL), suicidal ideation, pain and urinary symptoms were evident between these groups. RESULTS Forty nine percent of this sample reported cannabis use (n=206). Of those reporting cannabis use, 29% (n=59) indicated use for pain relief (pain users) and 71% (n=147) for recreation. The pain users (mean age=38.26±13.78), were younger than recreational users (42.37±12.18) and individuals who reported never using cannabis (45.29±13.73)(p=.001). More pain users reported cannabis was of pain reduction benefit in comparison to recreational users (Chisq=3.83, p=.05). No differences were found between recreational and pain users in degree of side effects (Chisq=4.43, p=.22), reasons for stopping (Chisq=4.84, p=.18), or use frequency (Chisq=5.48, p=.07). There were no differences in dose smoked between the pain and recreational users (Chisq=5.80, p=.12), but a difference was found in dose eaten between these two groups with 20% of pain users reporting consuming more than 1 gram per dose versus only 7% of recreational users reporting consuming this dosage. (Chisq=12.51, p=.002). Pain users reported more pain (F=4.04, p=.05), poorer CP/CPPS QoL/impact (F=8.61, p=.004), and more suicidal thoughts (F=6.59, p=.01) than recreational users. CONCLUSIONS Cannabis use is prevalent in men reporting CP/CPPS (49%), but not necessarily used for CP/CPPS symptoms (used for pain in only 29% users). It is important that physicians planning a therapeutic strategy for patients with CP/CPPS know the relevance of this data and question their patients on their use (and effect/impact on symptoms) of marijuana/cannabis. Although this study cannot qualify the benefit or hazard of cannabis use, this is the first study to document the prevalence and patterns of cannabis use in a CP/CPPS population. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e439-e440 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Dean Tripp Kingston, Canada More articles by this author J. Curtis Nickel Kingston, Canada More articles by this author Katz Laura Kingston, Canada More articles by this author Jessica V. Ginting Kingston, Canada More articles by this author Ware Mark Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Darcy Santor Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».