Shockwave Lithotripsy Practice Pattern Variations Among and Between American and Canadian Urologists: In Support of Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a widely utilized form of treatment for urolithiasis. There are new evidence-based recommendations regarding pre-SWL patient work-up and the performance of SWL. The purpose of this study is to determine practice patterns for SWL and to determine if regional variation exists between Canada and the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 19-question survey was prepared. Canadian urologists were surveyed through e-mail correspondence. In the United States, members of the Endourologic Society and members of two large stone management groups were surveyed. Canadian and American results were compared using the chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Ninety-four Canadian urologists and 187 U.S. urologists completed the survey. Practice patterns differed between countries. Intravenous sedation was more commonly used in Canada (Canada 94.7% vs United States 17.9%, p < 0.001); routine antibiotics were more commonly given in United States (Canada 2.1% vs United States 78.1%, p < 0.001); a shock rate of 2 Hz was more common in Canada (Canada 76.6% vs United States 16.2%, p < 0.00001); rate of discontinuing ASA for renal and ureteral stone treatment was higher in the United States (renal Canada 88.3% vs United States 95.7%, p < 0.02; ureteral Canada 62.4% vs 90.3%, p < 0.0001); and ureteral stents were more commonly used if treating a large stone or patients with solitary kidneys in the United States (large stones Canada 58.2% vs United States 88.8%, p = 0.0001; solitary kidney Canada 50.6% vs 66.3%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the absence of standardization of SWL. Significant regional differences exist in practice patterns and performance of SWL between Canadian and American urologists.
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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".