MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105279561 · doi:10.1002/nau.20610

Clean intermittent self‐catheterization: A burden for the patient?

2008· article· en· W2105279561 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurourology and Urodynamics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute of Steel Construction
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Confidence intervalOdds ratioActivities of daily livingPhysical therapyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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