A systematic review and comparison of questionnaires in the management of spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis and the neurogenic bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Validated questionnaires are increasingly the preferred method used to obtain historical information. Specialized questionnaires exist validated for patients with neurogenic disease including neurogenic bladder. Those currently available are systematically reviewed and their potential for clinical and research use are described. METHODS: A systematic search via Medline and PubMed using the key terms questionnaire(s) crossed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) for the years 1946 to January 22, 2014 inclusive. Additional articles were selected from review of references in the publications identified. Only peer reviewed articles published in English were included. RESULTS: 18 questionnaires exist validated for patients with neurogenic bladder; 14 related to MS, 3 for SCI, and 1 for neurogenic bladder in general; with 4 cross-validated in both MS and SCI. All 18 are validated for both male and female patients; 59% are available only in English. The domains of psychological impact and physical function are represented in 71% and 76% of questionnaires, respectively. None for the female population included elements to measure symptoms of prolapse. CONCLUSION: The last decade has seen an expansion of validated questionnaires to document bladder symptoms in neurogenic disease. Disease specific instruments are available for incorporation into the clinical setting for MS and SCI patients with neurogenic bladder. The availability of caregiver and interview options enhances suitability in clinical practice as they can be adapted to various extents of disability. Future developments should include expanded language validation to the top 10 global languages reported by the World Health Organization.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".