What is the Variability in Urodynamic Parameters With Position Change in Children? Analysis of a Prospectively Enrolled Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Insufficient data are available regarding the effect of patient position on urodynamic parameters and diagnoses in children. We report on a cohort of pediatric patients, comparing the results of serial urodynamic studies to determine the variability between the supine and sitting positions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children referred for urodynamic evaluation were prospectively enrolled based on the ability to tolerate position change. Consecutive studies in supine and sitting positions were performed during a single session by the same nursing team. Volume infused and infusion rate did not differ with position change. RESULTS: A total of 48 children were enrolled in the study. Mean patient age was 10.4 years. No statistically significant difference was noted for maximum cystometric capacity, detrusor leak point pressures or pressure specific volumes at 20 and 30 cm water between the supine and sitting positions. Statistically significant lower values were found for the volume of first sensation and volume at which detrusor overactivity was first detected (p <0.05), with a trend toward significance for abdominal or Valsalva leak point pressure. Statistically significant differences were also noted with position changes in regard to detection of detrusor overactivity and incontinence episodes (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study population no significant differences were detected in several urodynamic parameters with position change, suggesting that clinically valid conclusions can be obtained by performing the study in either position. Studies in the sitting position allow for increased detection of detrusor overactivity and incontinence, thus, being favored over the supine position if well tolerated by the child.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".