Clean intermittent self‐catheterization: A burden for the patient?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess patients' perception of clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) for voiding dysfunction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 101 patients performing CISC because of voiding dysfunction were invited to participate in this questionnaire survey. The response rate was 91% (92/101). RESULTS: The mean time over which CISC was performed was 5 years (standard deviation (SD) +/- 6.3) and the mean frequency of CISC per day was three times (SD +/- 2). Almost 80% (72/92) of the patients perceived CISC as easy or very easy and CISC did not interfere at all or interfered a little bit with work or other regular daily activities in more than 80% (76/92). Almost 90% (80/92) reported no or minimal pain while performing CISC. This did not interfere at all or interfered a little bit with work or other regular daily activities in almost 90% (80/92). Quality of life improved considerably due to CISC in more than 60% (56/92) and 12% (11/92) complained of a deterioration. In multivariable analysis, severe pain performing CISC (odds ratio 20.9, 95% confidence interval 1.7-259.9, P = 0.018) was the only factor that predicted poor quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients considered CISC to be an easy and painless procedure which did not interfere with daily activities. Consequently, quality of life improved in more than 60% of the patients. Therefore, CISC does not appear to be a burden for the patient and, from a patient's perspective, can be recommended.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".