Long‐term bladder drainage: Suprapubic catheter versus other methods: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The purpose of this scoping review was to examine research activity comparing suprapubic catheterization to any other method of chronic bladder emptying such as intermittent and indwelling catheterization in adults in relation to complications, patient satisfaction, and health-related quality of life (QoL). METHODS: A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and OVID) was performed 1950-May 2012 using the search terms, singly or combined: suprapubic, catheter, long term, effectiveness, urinary, health promotion, incontinence, retention, QoL, and evidence based. All research designs were included. Papers were excluded if catheter duration was <30 days or were single case reports. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles were identified for potential inclusion from an initial 394 and 14 retained after final review. Studies varied in subjects, outcome measures, and publication dates. The majority were retrospective reviews; four were descriptive/qualitative studies. Based on the clinical findings, suprapubic catheters are associated with a low incidence of urethral injury and stricture, but have similar rates of upper tract damage, vesicoureteral reflux, renal or bladder calculi, and symptomatic urinary tract infections compared to urethral catheters. Users report being generally satisfied with suprapubic catheters. No studies addressed stoma or skin care, urethral leakage, or adherence to the suprapubic catheter after insertion. CONCLUSION: Most studies focused on clinical urologic issues rather than patient understanding of suprapubic catheter management, satisfaction, stoma and skin care, or health related QoL. Further studies are needed to elucidate efficacy from an individual user and clinician perspective.
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 | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".