Twelve‐month outcomes following midurethral sling procedures for stress incontinence: impact of obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate impact of body mass index (BMI) ≥30 on objective and subjective cure rates 12 months after midurethral sling surgery. DESIGN: Secondary analysis. SETTING: Three hospitals in Calgary, Canada, 2005-07. POPULATION: A total of 182 women enrolled in a randomised control trial of tension-free vaginal tape versus transobturator tape. METHODS: Women were classified as obese or nonobese from height and weight on day of surgery. Women underwent postoperative standardised pad tests, self-reporting of urinary incontinence, and quality of life scores. Categorical data compared with chi-square or Fisher's exact, continuous data compared with Mann-Whitney U test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was objective cure, defined as <1 g urine loss on postoperative 1-hour pad test. Secondary outcomes were subjective cure of incontinence (no stress incontinence in previous 7 days), presence of urinary urgency in previous 7 days, Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) scores, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) scores, and surgical complication rates. RESULTS: Objective cure differed, with 85.6% of nonobese women leaking <1 g on 1-hour pad test, versus 67.8% of obese women (P = 0.006, risk difference [RD] 17.8%, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.2-31.4%). Subjective cure was 85.8% for nonobese women versus 70.7% for obese women (P = 0.016, RD 15.1%, 95% CI 1.9-28.4%). For both groups, improvement was seen for postoperative UDI-6 (median -33.3 [-44.4 to -22.2] and -27.2 [-44.4 to -16.7]) and IIQ-7 scores (median -26.2 [-45.2 to -14.3] and -23.8 [-42.9 to -14.3]). No differences existed in rates of operative complications between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Twelve months after midurethral sling surgery, obese women experience lower rates of cure than those who are nonobese.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".