Randomized, crossover study evaluating patient preference and the impact on quality of life of urisheaths vs absorbent products in incontinent men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate the impact of urisheaths vs absorbent products (APs) on quality of life (QoL) in men with moderate to severe urinary incontinence (UI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • A randomized, controlled, crossover trial in 61 outpatient adult men with stable, moderate to severe UI, with no concomitant faecal incontinence, was conducted from June 2007 to February 2009 in 14 urology centres. • Participants tested Conveen Optima urisheaths (Coloplast, Humlebaek, Denmark) with collecting bags and their usual AP in random order for 2 weeks each. • The impact of each on QoL was measured using the King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ) and the short form-12 acute questionnaire, and each patient's preference was recorded. • A 10-item patient questionnaire was also used to assess the product main advantages on an 11-point scale (0: worst; 10: best). A 72-h leakage diary was used to record the number and severity of leaks and daily product consumption. Safety was measured as the number of local adverse events. RESULTS: • All dimensions of the KHQ were scored lower with urisheaths, indicating an improvement in QoL. The greatest mean score reductions were in Limitations of Daily Activities (-10.24, P= 0.01) and Incontinence Impact (-7.05, P= 0.045). • The majority (69%) of patients preferred Conveen Optima urisheaths to their usual AP (P = 0.002). • Urisheaths scored significantly higher for all categories in the patient questionnaire (efficacy, self-image, odour management, discretion, skin integrity) except ease of use. • Safety was considered to be good. CONCLUSIONS: • Conveen Optima urisheaths showed a positive impact on QoL (according to the KHQ results) in moderate to severe incontinent men, who were long-term users of APs, and participants largely preferred urisheaths. • Conveen Optima urisheaths should be recommended to incontinent men in preference to APs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".