Clinical pearls to managing men’s health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In late 2019, a novel coronavirus (Sars-CoV-2) was identified in Wuhan, China.1 Subsequently, the rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) around the world has resulted in the declaration of a pandemic by the World Health Organization,2 with resulting massive changes in societal behaviors. COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on many of those afflicted with the condition, but the pandemic has also had a dramatic effect on healthcare delivery for those patients without COVID-19. In preparation for expected increased hospital resource needs, most centers have limited or cancelled all elective surgical procedures. Furthermore, in accordance with new social distancing norms, clinical encounters for non-emergent patients have shifted, when possible, to virtual visits. Urologic surgical care in Canada has undergone a substantial shift to only offering surgery for emergencies and urgent oncology cases. Most of the “bread-and-butter” urology, including the entire subspecialty of men’s health and andrology, does not qualify as emergent or even urgent care. Surgeries have been postponed indefinitely for most men requiring intervention for the management of infertility, sexual health, voiding dysfunction, and chronic urological pain. Thankfully, men’s health is an ideal field for virtual care (either by telephone or by video calling) given the many medical and patient education options for treatment. There have been several studies across a variety of specialties that appear to show that virtual visits do not worsen outcomes, and in some cases even improve care.3–7 Two studies within the field of urology have been completed showing no adverse outcomes in a general urology virtual followup clinic and in a virtual clinic focused on renal colic.8,9 With the fluid nature of a pandemic scenario, it is unclear when we will once again have access to surgical and clinical resources to provide the standard care for our patients. As a result, we aimed to bring together some of Canada’s urologic leaders in men’s health to provide pearls and pitfalls regarding the management of common men’s health conditions during the pandemic using the virtual care model. A group of urologists from across Canada with expertise in the area of men’s health were invited to provide expert commentary on management of some common men’s health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of the experts on the panel was provided with a set of standardized written questions (Table 1) to answer. The answers were edited by authors LW, RF, and KJ to fit into a standardized report. The goal of this manuscript is to provide expert guidance to our urology colleagues on how to safely provide virtual care for patients with some of the common men’s health conditions, and to provide a resource to our primary care colleagues to understand the options available to the consultant urologist assessing these patients. Table 1 Question’s provided to manuscript authors
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 | 0,011 | 0,055 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,020 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,005 |
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 ».