Does urethral competence affect urodynamic voiding parameters in women with prolapse?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To (1) compare voiding parameters and (2) correlate symptoms and urodynamic findings in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and varying degrees of urethral competence. METHODS: We compared three groups of women with stages II-IV POP. Groups 1 and 2 were symptomatically stress continent women participating in the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial; during prolapse reduction before sacrocolpopexy, Group 1 (n = 67) did not have and Group 2 (n = 84) had urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) during prolapse reduction. Group 3 participants (n = 74), recruited specifically for this study, had stress urinary incontinence (SUI) symptoms and planned sacrocolpopexy. Participants completed standardized uroflowmetry, pressure voiding studies, and validated symptom questionnaires. RESULTS: Subjects' median age was 61 years, median parity 3 and 87% had stage III or IV POP. Fourteen percent of women in Group 3 demonstrated USI without, and 70% with, prolapse reduction. Women in Groups 2 and 3 had more detrusor overactivity (DO) than Group 1 (17 and 24% vs. 6%, P = 0.02) and detrusor overactivity incontinence (DOI) (15 and 8% vs. 0%, P = 0.004). Based on the Blaivis-Groutz nomogram, 60% of all women were obstructed. Post-void residual volume (PVR), peak flow rate, detrusor pressure at peak flow, voiding mechanisms, voiding patterns, obstruction and urinary retention did not differ among groups. Women in Group 3 had higher irritative and obstructive symptom scores than Group 1 or 2; neither score differed by presence of DO nor obstruction, respectively. CONCLUSION: Women with POP have significant rates of urodynamic obstruction and retention, independent of their continence status. Symptoms of obstruction and retention correlate poorly with urodynamic findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".