MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973070486 · doi:10.1002/nau.20947

Incidence of stress urinary incontinence following vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse in objectively continent women

2011· article· en· W1973070486 on OpenAlexafffund
Hazem Al‐Mandeel, Sue Ross, Magali Robert, Jill Milne

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurourology and Urodynamics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineUrinary incontinenceIncidence (geometry)Stress incontinenceUrinary systemUrologyGynecologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) following vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in preoperatively continent women and to evaluate the impact of the problem. METHODS: Women were eligible if they had undergone vaginal repairs for any degree or type of POP with no anti-incontinence procedure between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006, and had been continent preoperatively, as defined by a negative cough stress test with or without reduction of prolapse. Demographic, preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were retrieved from hospital charts. The incidence of postoperative SUI (POSUI) and its quality of life (QoL) impact were assessed by mailed questionnaire. The POSUI endpoint was defined by the report of SUI symptoms on the mailed questionnaire and/or affirmation of postoperative treatment for SUI. RESULTS: Forty-two out of 100 respondents reported POSUI within the 2-year average follow-up period. Twelve of 37 symptomatic women (32%) were moderately or greatly bothered by their symptoms. The QoL impact score was generally low but was statistically greater in women with POSUI compared to those with no POSUI (13 vs. 3, P=0.0006). CONCLUSION: The risk of POSUI following vaginal repairs of POP may be higher than previously reported and approximately one-third of women are bothered by these symptoms. These findings deserve further investigation.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurourology and UrodynamicsSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207