Economic analyses of stress urinary incontinence surgical procedures in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the quality of economic analysis (EA) of surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. METHODS: A MEDLINE search on EA for SUI surgical procedures for the years 2000-2014 included the MeSH terms "tension-free vaginal tape," "TVT," "trans-obturator tape," "TOT," "Burch colposuspension" (BC), "stress urinary incontinence," "economic analysis," and "cost-effectiveness analysis." Important criteria for evaluating articles were selected from panels that set out criteria to evaluate EA [Scales CD, Jr., Christopher SS, American Urological Association 32:121-128, 2013], [Hsieh MH, Maxwell MV, J Urol 178 1867-1874, 2007], [Wu JM, Catherine CM, Conover MM, et al., Obstet Gynecol 123 1201-1206, 2014]. RESULTS: Thirteen articles were identified: TVT compared to BC (6), to other surgical procedures for SUI (1), to TOT (3) and to the mini-sling (1); open BC compared to laparoscopic BC (1), and analysis of various slings and meshes for various types of incontinence (1). Articles originated from: United States (3), Europe (4), United Kingdom (4), and Canada (2). Eight described cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), two cost-utility analysis, and three cost comparison. Follow-up time for patients ranged from 6 to 24 months in eight articles, with four having a minimum of 24 months follow-up. Studies mostly adhered to the criteria, however indirect costs, sensitivity analysis, and efficacy parameters varied. Long-term synthetic sling-related complications were not included. CONCLUSION: Although CEA for SUI surgery is a burgeoning field, study comparisons remain difficult due to some variability, including health care delivery systems. As women live longer, long-term data will become critical as complications and reoperations can affect the real cost of SUI corrective procedures. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:1040-1045, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.018 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".