MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Early removal of urinary catheter leads to greater post‐void residuals in patients with thoracic epidural

2012· article· en· W1892507791 on OpenAlexaff
Cédrick Zaouter, Patrick Y. Wuethrich, Mario Miccoli, F. Carli

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCatheterUrinationSurgeryUrinary systemUrinary retentionAnesthesiaUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A recent study showed that the removal of a bladder catheter is safe in presence of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). However, the ability to void satisfactorily can be affected. The aim of this investigation is to determine whether patients with TEA are able to recover the micturition process. METHODS: On the morning after the surgery patients were randomised into two groups: the early removal group (ERG) (n = 101), with the bladder catheter removed at the same time, and the standard group (SG) (n = 104), where the bladder catheter was kept as long as TEA was functioning (on average 3-5 days after surgery). Following the first micturition, patients underwent regular ultrasound scanning of the bladder until a post-void residual (PVR) less than 200 ml was reached. RESULTS: All of the patients in the ERG and in the SG started to void and recovered satisfactorily their ability to void, reaching a PVR < 200 ml without requiring a transurethral catheterisation. However, the length of time to reach a PVR < 200 ml in the ERG was significantly longer compared with the SG (345 min ± 169 vs. 207 min ± 122, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In the presence of TEA, the removal of the bladder catheter on the morning after surgery leads to a transient impairment of the lower urinary tract function with no need for re-catheterisation.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Anaesthesiologica ScandinavicaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207