Gentamicin bladder instillations decrease symptomatic urinary tract infections in neurogenic bladder patients on intermittent catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine if gentamicin bladder instillations reduce the rate of symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) in neurogenic bladder (NGB) patients on intermittent self-catheterization (ISC) who have recurrent UTIs. Secondary aims were to examine the effects of intravesical gentamicin on the organism resistance patterns. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our prospective NGB database. Inclusion criteria were NGB patients performing ISC exclusively for bladder drainage with clinical data available for six months before and six months after initiating prophylactic intravesical gentamicin instillations. Symptomatic UTIs were defined as symptoms consistent with UTI plus the need for antibiotic treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients met inclusion criteria; etiology of NGB was 63.6% spinal cord injury, 13.6% multiple sclerosis. Median time since injury/diagnosis was 14 years and 6/22 (27.3%) had undergone urological reconstruction. Patients had fewer symptomatic UTI's (median 4 vs. 1 episodes; p<0.004) and underwent fewer courses of oral antibiotics after initiating gentamicin (median 3.5 vs. 1; p<0.01). Days of oral antibiotic therapy decreased from 15 before to five after gentamicin, but this did not reach significance. There were fewer telephone encounters for UTI concerns per patient (median 3 vs. 0; p=0.03). The proportion of multi-drug-resistant organisms in urine cultures decreased from 58.3% to 47.1% (p=0.04) and the rate of gentamicin resistance did not increase. Adverse events were mild and rare. CONCLUSIONS: Gentamicin bladder instillations decrease symptomatic UTI episodes and reduce oral antibiotics in patients with NGB on ISC who were suffering from recurrent UTIs. Antibiotic resistance decreased while on gentamicin instillations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".