MP06-11 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW CANADIAN ENDOUROLOGY GROUP STENT SYMPTOM SCORE (CEGSSS)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy I (MP06)1 Sep 2021MP06-11 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW CANADIAN ENDOUROLOGY GROUP STENT SYMPTOM SCORE (CEGSSS) Naeem Bhojani, Jason Y. Lee, Shubhadip K. De, Andrea G. Lantz, Sri Sivalingam, Michael Ordon, Kymora B. Scotland, Sero Andonian, and Ben H. Chew Naeem BhojaniNaeem Bhojani More articles by this author , Jason Y. LeeJason Y. Lee More articles by this author , Shubhadip K. DeShubhadip K. De More articles by this author , Andrea G. LantzAndrea G. Lantz More articles by this author , Sri SivalingamSri Sivalingam More articles by this author , Michael OrdonMichael Ordon More articles by this author , Kymora B. ScotlandKymora B. Scotland More articles by this author , Sero AndonianSero Andonian More articles by this author , and Ben H. ChewBen H. Chew More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001973.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Placement of a ureteral stent is a common urological intervention that can significantly impact QoL. The ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) has been used since its development in 2003 but its length hinders its use in clinical practice. Therefore, we sought to develop a new, shorter, practical and validated tool. METHODS: We sought to create a new quality of life questionnaire using a 2 phase schema: Phase 1: Using the USSQ as a starting point, 9 Canadian Endourology Group (CEG) members and 21 patients evaluated each item of the USSQ (Likert scale 1 to 5) to determine its importance/relevance in assessing symptoms associated with a ureteral stent. All accepted items were than discussed with face-to-face meetings. Phase 2 (Pilot trial): Patients undergoing stent placement completed the newly developed CEGSSS in addition to a short survey evaluating the tool itself. 5 rounds of 5 patients, with modifications of the CEGSSS based on feedback after every round was anticipated. RESULTS: Phase 1: After consultation with patients and CEG experts, items were accepted if the mean patient or expert rating was ≥4.0 (out of 5) with a SD of ≤0.75. Questions with mean patient or mean expert ratings of ≥4.0 but SD ≥0.75 or with divergent results between patients and experts were flagged for discussion. Those items that did not meet these requirements were rejected. The final CEGSSS contains 15 questions divided into 3 domains: Urination (8 Q), Pain (3 Q) and QoL (2 Q). Phase 2: 16 patients were recruited. After 3 rounds of patient feedback, no new feedback was received and therefore this process was deemed complete (Table 1). Median time to complete the CEGSSS was 7 minutes (2-20 minutes). 2/16 patients required assistance to complete the questionnaire, but all patients rated it as easy to navigate. Mean level of difficulty was 1.75/5. CONCLUSIONS: Through a process of expert and patient consultation and a pilot trial, a new stent symptom questionnaire was developed that is short, easy for patients to understand and clinically relevant. The next step will be external validation of the newly developed CEGSSS. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e93-e94 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Naeem Bhojani More articles by this author Jason Y. Lee More articles by this author Shubhadip K. De More articles by this author Andrea G. Lantz More articles by this author Sri Sivalingam More articles by this author Michael Ordon More articles by this author Kymora B. Scotland More articles by this author Sero Andonian More articles by this author Ben H. Chew More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
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 | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,047 | 0,018 |
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 ».