Prospective evaluation of anxiety, pain, and embarrassment associated with cystoscopy and urodynamic testing in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: We sought to prospectively assess anxiety, pain, and embarrassment associated with diagnostic cystoscopy and multichannel urodynamic study (UDS).Methods: All consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic cystoscopy or UDS in our department over a period of nine months were asked to participate. Two anonymous auto-administered questionnaires were specifically designed to collect basic epidemiological data, document medical history, and assess the quality of information provided, along with prevalence and level (0‒10 numerical visual analog rating scale) of anxiety, pain, and embarrassment experienced before and/or during the procedures. Statistical analysis was carried out to identify underlying factors that could have influenced patients’ experience and ascertain potential correlations between anxiety, pain, and embarrassment.Results: 101 and 185 patients were respectively evaluated immediately after cystoscopy and UDS. Multivariate analysis repeatedly showed statistical correlations between anxiety, pain, and embarrassment, with regard to prevalence and level of intensity in both cystoscopy and UDS populations. Males and young patients were more likely to present anxiety, pain, or embarrassment during cystoscopy and UDS. Interestingly, patients who reported having received complete information before cystoscopy were significantly more likely to experience anxiety (62.6% vs. 20.0%; p=0.009).Conclusions: The present study demonstrated the major impact of gender and age on patients’ experience. Interestingly, information provided before cystoscopy was reported to have a negative impact on patients’ perception of anxiety; this could be partly prevented by optimizing the way information is provided to patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".