MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1762171191 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.955

Feasibility and outcome of clean intermittent catheterization for children with sensate urethra

2013· article· en· W1762171191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khalid Fouda Neel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClean Intermittent CatheterizationBladder augmentationSurgeryUrethraUrinary systemArtificial urinary sphincterUrinary incontinenceUrinary bladderInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) is an importantasset in managing children with noncompliant bladders. We reviewthe feasibility and late outcomes of patients with normal urethralsensation who began CIC.Materials and methods: We reviewed all patients with posteriorurethral valve (PUV) or non-neuropathic bladder sphincter dysfunction(NNBSD) who began on CIC, and had at least 2 years offollow-up. We considered their age, indication, acceptance andcompliance with CIC. Additionally, we examined the late outcomeof bladder function and the need for any surgical intervention atfollow-up.Results: Between 1999 and 2006, 52 patients with PUV (38patients) or NNBSD (14 patients) were started on CIC. Of these 52patients, 48% were under the age of 4. A total of 44 patients (85%)accepted the recommendation for CIC, and 34 patients (65%) werecompliant with the protocol after at least 2 years of follow-up. Theage of the patients was the only significant factor related to thesuccess of the protocol (4 years old or younger, p = 0.03). Afterat least 2 years of follow-up, 28 patients (54%) remained on CICand have not required urinary diversion or bladder reconstruction.Conclusion: The current study showed that CIC is a feasible optionfor patients with sensate urethra, which necessitates the introductionof treatment as early as possible. Further, those patients whoare compliant with the CIC demonstrated a better chance of avoidingsubsequent surgical intervention for the management of a noncompliantbladder.Objectif : Le cathétérisme intermittent propre (CIP) est un élémentimportant de la prise en charge de l’insuffisance vésicale chez lesenfants. Nous passons ici en revue la faisabilité et les résultats tardifschez des patients affichant des sensations urétrales normalesqui ont entrepris un traitement par CIP.Matériel et méthodologie : Nous avons examiné tous les patientsatteints d’une dysfonction de la valve urétrale postérieure (DVUP)ou d’une dysfonction non névrotique du sphincter vésical (DNNSV)ayant entrepris un traitement par CIP, et suivis pendant au moins2 ans. Nous avons tenu compte de leur âge, de l’indication dutraitement, de leur acceptation et leur observance du traitementpar CIP. En outre, nous avons examiné les résultats tardifs de lafonction vésicale et le besoin de recourir à tout type d’interventionchirurgicale lors du suivi.Résultats : Entre 1999 et 2006, 52 patients atteints de DVUP(38 patients) ou de DNNSV (14 patients) ont entrepris un traitementpar CIP. De ce nombre, 48 % avaient moins de 4 ans. Au total,44 patients (85 %) ont accepté la recommandation de procéderau CIP, et 34 patients (65 %) observaient toujours le traitementaprès au moins 2 ans de suivi. L’âge des patients représentaitle seul facteur significatif lié à la réussite du traitement (4 ansou moins, p = 0,03). Après au moins 2 ans de suivi, 28 patients(54 %) poursuivaient leur traitement par CIP et n’avaient pas besoind’un détournement urinaire ou d’une reconstruction de la vessie.Conclusion : Notre étude a montré que le CIP est une optionraisonnable pour les patients avec urètre sensible, qui nécessitel’instauration d’un traitement le plus rapidement possible. Par ailleurs,les patients qui observent bien le traitement par CIP présentaientde meilleures chances d’éviter une intervention chirurgicalesubséquente pour le traitement d’une insuffisance vésicale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207