Diagnostic Performances of Patient's Interview, Uroflowmetry Alone and Uroflowmetry Paired With Electromyography as Screening Tools to Identify Straining to Void
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIMS: To assess the diagnostic performances of patient's interview, final uroflowmetry alone and final uroflowmetry paired with rectus abdominis muscle electromyography (EMG) as screening tools to identify straining to void. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent a multi-channel urodynamic study to explore filling phase disorders - including final uroflowmetry associated with intrarectal pressure monitoring - between 2020 and 2021 in our department of urology were considered eligible. Intrarectal pressure curves (gold-standard) were examined by two senior urologists and a continence nurse to determine by consensus the presence of straining to void. The final uroflowmetry curves and final uroflowmetry paired with EMG curves were retrospectively submitted for interpretation to 3 groups of urologists with different levels of experience (residents, fellows, seniors). Each group was composed of 3 independent examiners blinded to intrarectal pressure. The diagnostic performances of patient's interview, and the diagnostic performances as well as the inter- and the intra-examiner correlation of final uroflowmetry alone and final uroflowmetry paired with EMG were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 282 neurogenic and non-neurogenic patients were included in the present study. The patient's impression to identify straining to void was associated with a sensitivity, a specificity, a predictive positive value (PPV) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 68.4%, 63.9%, 68.0% and 64.3%, respectively. Final uroflowmetry alone was associated with a sensitivity, a specificity, a PPV and a NPV of 60.4%, 75.1%, 73.1% and 62.8%, respectively. Final uroflowmetry paired with EMG was associated with a sensitivity, a specificity, a PPV and a NPV of 61.3%, 84.9%, 81.6% and 66.8%, respectively. The inter- and intra-examiner agreement of final uroflowmetry alone was reported as moderate to poor, ranging between 0.17 and 0.72 and 0.58-0.79, respectively. The inter- and intra-examiner agreement of final uroflowmetry paired with electromyography was reported as moderate to poor, ranging between 0.26 and 0.73 and 0.59-0.81, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patient's interview, final uroflowmetry alone and paired with rectus abdominis muscle EMG, are not reliable enough to be considered as screening tools for straining to void.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».