Urinary incontinence as a predictor of death after new‐onset stroke: a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Urinary incontinence (UI) could be an indicator of increased mortality after new-onset stroke. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to characterize this association. METHODS: A systematic search retrieved all studies exploring the post-stroke period and comparing death among patients suffering from UI with those without UI. Hazard ratios (HRs) were extracted or estimated from the published proportion of deaths. Various meta-analyses pooled unadjusted HRs, HRs adjusted for confounders and HRs stratified by subgroups of strokes (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), using models with random effects. Heterogeneity was explored through stratification of studies and meta-regression of predefined parameters. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 24 studies. UI increased the mortality among the general stroke patients in pooled unadjusted (HR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.9-6.7) and adjusted (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.7) analyses. This association was also found among ischaemic (HR, 8.5; 95% CI, 4.6-15.7) and haemorrhagic (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.4-11.3) subgroups of strokes. Studies including indwelling catheters, published more than 10 years ago or with the highest quality on the selection criteria of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale were associated with a greater effect of UI on mortality. Funnel plots showed a clear asymmetry for adjusted associations. After correcting for this potential publication bias, the pooled HRs still demonstrated a positive association between UI and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary incontinence indicates high risk of death after a new-onset stroke. Validity of the analyses on adjusted models is limited by an obvious publication bias.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".