How well informed are women who undergo urodynamic testing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Urodynamic studies (UDS) are complex, invasive and may be emotionally and physically distressing. Inadequate information may heighten distress. Prior to UDS, our patients receive written and verbal information, yet concerns remains that some women may not be adequately informed. This study examined how informed women believe they are to undergo UDS in our clinic. METHODS: This was a before-after questionnaire-based study. Data were collected from a convenience sample of 200 women prior to UD testing, and within 3 days of completion. Participants rated their level of agreement/disagreement with the following statements: I understand why I am having the test; I have been given enough information about the test; I understand what the test will involve. Women also reported their perceived levels of distress (anxiety, embarrassment, and discomfort). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one women returned both pre- and post-UD questionnaires. Most (88.9%) had read the information sheet and agreed that they understood the indications for the testing (78.1%). Fewer agreed that they understood what the tests would involve (68.2%), or that they had been given enough information about the test (64.9%). The overall distress score (anxiety, embarrassment, and discomfort) was 6 (IQR 5-7; possible range 3-9). CONCLUSIONS: Urodynamic testing remains an invasive yet prevalent form of urogynecological assessment. One-third of our patients may not understand what UD testing involves and may not feel adequately informed about the tests. Additional research to explore informational needs is important.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".