Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".