Bladder Training Video versus Standard Urotherapy for Bladder and Bowel Dysfunction: A Noninferiority Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated whether an animated bladder training video was as effective as standard individual urotherapy in improving bladder/bowel symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients 5 to 10 years old who scored greater than 11 on the bladder/bowel Vancouver questionnaire were included in a noninferiority randomized, controlled trial. Children with vesicoureteral reflux, neuropathic bladder, learning disabilities, recent urotherapy or primary nocturnal enuresis were excluded from analysis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard urotherapy or watch a bladder training video in clinic using centralized blocked randomization schemes. Bladder/bowel symptoms were evaluated at baseline and 3-month followup by intent to treat analysis. A sample size of 150 patients ensured a 3.5 difference in mean symptomology scores between the groups, which was accepted as the noninferiority margin. RESULTS: Of 539 screened patients 173 (37%) were eligible for study and 150 enrolled. A total of 143 patients (95%) completed the trial, 5 (4%) were lost to followup and 2 (1%) withdrew. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Baseline mean ± SD symptomology scores were 19.9 ± 5.5 for the bladder training video and 19.7 ± 6.0 for standard urotherapy. At 3 months the mean symptomology scores for the bladder training video and standard urotherapy were reduced to 14.4 ± 6.5 and 13.8 ± 6.0, respectively (p = 0.54). The mean difference was 0.6 (95% CI -1.4-2.6). The upper 95% CI limit of 2.6 did not exceed the preset 3.5 noninferiority margin. CONCLUSIONS: The bladder training video was not inferior to standard urotherapy in reducing bladder/bowel symptoms in children 5 to 10 years old. The video allows families to have free access to independently review bladder training concepts as often as necessary.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".