Identifying and classifying quality of life tools for neurogenic bladder function after spinal cord injury: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and classify quality of life (QoL) tools for assessing the influence of neurogenic bladder after spinal cord injury/disease (SCI). DESIGN: Systematic Review Methods: Medline/Pubmed, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched using terms related to SCI, neurogenic bladder and QoL. Studies that assessed the influence neurogenic bladder on QoL (or related construct) in samples consisting of ≥50% individuals with SCI were included. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts of 368 identified references; 118 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 42 studies were included. Two reviewers independently classified outcomes as objective (societal viewpoint) or subjective (patient perspective) using a QoL framework. RESULTS: Ten objective QoL measures were identified, with the Medical Outcomes Short Form (SF-36/SF-12) used most frequently. Fourteen subjective QoL measures were identified; 8 were specific to neurogenic bladder. Psychometric evidence for SCI-specific neurogenic bladder QoL tools was reported for the Quality of Life Index (QLI), Qualiveen, Bladder Complications Scale, Spinal Cord Injury-Quality of Life (SCI-QOL) Bladder Management Difficulties, and the SCI-QOL Bladder Management Difficulties-Short Form. The QLI and Qualiveen showed sensitivity to neurogenic bladder in experimental designs. CONCLUSION: Several objective and subjective tools exist to assess the influence of neurogenic bladder on QoL in SCI. The QLI and Qualiveen, both subjective tools, were the only validated SCI-specific tools that showed sensitivity to neurogenic bladder. Further validation of existing subjective SCI-specific outcomes is needed. Research to validate objective measures of QoL would be useful for informing practice and policy related to resource allocation for bladder care post-SCI.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".