MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The contemporary role of Burch colposuspension

2005· review· en· W2091587459 on OpenAlexaff
Jerome Green, Sender Herschorn

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review was to define the current role of Burch colposuspension for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Publications from 2004 were reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: The open Burch colposuspension is reviewed with highlights on its efficacy, mechanism of continence, recent reports on intraoperative ultrasound, postoperative catheterization, coital incontinence, and the effect of concomitant procedures. Long-term efficacy has remained at approximately 70%. Less invasive Burch approaches are evaluated including the laparoscopic techniques and the mini-incisional Burch colposuspension. The laparoscopic Burch approach is satisfactory if sutures rather than mesh are used. Three well designed, prospective, randomized trials comparing the Burch (one open and two laparoscopic) colposuspension with tension-free vaginal tape are discussed. SUMMARY: The open Burch procedure with its long-term success rates remains a gold standard for surgical treatment of genuine stress urinary incontinence. Less invasive Burch procedures require longer term follow-up studies with comparison to the open approach and tension-free vaginal tape before its role can be settled. At this point, tension-free vaginal tape appears to be at least equivalent to the Burch colposuspension and, with longer follow-up studies, may challenge its role as a gold standard surgical treatment for female stress incontinence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in UrologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207