MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282843980 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.066

Patient Reported Outcomes in Preoperative and Postoperative Patients with Hypospadias

2016· article· en· W2282843980 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypospadiasPreoperative careSurgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Current outcome tools for hypospadias have limited focus on the caregiver or patient perspective of important patient centered outcomes. In this study we collaborated with patients, caregivers, and lay and medical experts to develop and pilot a patient reported outcome measure for hypospadias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a patient reported outcome measure based on systematic review of the literature and focus group input. The patient reported outcome measure was piloted in caregivers for boys younger than 8 years and in patients older than 8 years who presented for urology consultation before meeting with the surgeon. Patients were classified with uncorrected hypospadias, successful repair or failed repair based on the presence or absence of complications (fistula, diverticulum, meatal stenosis/stricture, greater than 30-degree recurrent curvature, glans dehiscence and/or skin reoperation). RESULTS: A patient reported outcome measure was developed and administered to 347 patients and/or caregivers-proxies, including 105 uncorrected cases, 162 successful repair cases and 80 failed cases. Satisfaction with appearance was highest in those with successful hypospadias repair compared to failed repair and uncorrected hypospadias (93% vs 77% and 67%, respectively). Voiding symptoms such as spraying or a deviated stream were highest in failed and uncorrected cases (39% and 37%, respectively). Overall dissatisfaction with voiding was highest for uncorrected hypospadias and failed repair compared to successful cases (54% and 47%, respectively, vs 15%). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of patient and caregiver-proxy reported outcomes in preoperative and postoperative patients with hypospadias allows for the quantification of benefits derived from hypospadias repair and may ultimately represent the gold standard outcome measure for hypospadias. This pilot study identified preliminary patient centered themes and demonstrated the feasibility of administering hypospadias patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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