Conservative management for female urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse review 2013: Summary of the 5th International Consultation on Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The objective of the 5th International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI) chapter on Adult Conservative Management was to review and summarize the new evidence on conservative management of urinary incontinence (UI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in order to compile a current reference source for clinicians, health researchers, and service planners. In this paper, we present the review highlights and new evidence on female conservative management. METHODS: Revision and updates of the 4th ICI Report using systematic review covering years 2008-2012. RESULTS: Each section begins with a brief definition and description of the intervention followed by a summary, where possible, of both the state and level of evidence for prevention and treatment, and ends with a "grade of recommendation." The paper concludes with areas identified as requiring further research. CONCLUSIONS: For UI, there are no prevention trials on lifestyle interventions. There are, however, few new intervention trials of lifestyle interventions involving weight loss and fluid intake with improved levels of evidence and grade of recommendation. Outside of pre- and post-natal pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) trials for the prevention of female UI, there is a dearth of PFMT prevention trials for women with UI. PFMT remains the first-line treatment for female UI with high levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Bladder training levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are maintained. For POP, new evidence supports the effectiveness of physiotherapy in the treatment of POP and there are now improved levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:15-20, 2016. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".