MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762609679 · doi:10.1186/s12894-017-0286-3

Study protocol: patient reported outcomes for bladder management strategies in spinal cord injury

2017· article· en· W2762609679 on OpenAlexaff
Darshan P. Patel, Sara Lenherr, John T. Stoffel, Sean P. Elliott, Blayne Welk, Angela P. Presson, Amitabh Jha, Jeffrey Rosenbluth, Jeremy B. Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Urology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyUrinary systemProspective cohort studyUrinary incontinenceSurgeryInternal medicineSpinal cordNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The majority of spinal cord injury (SCI) patients have urinary issues, such as incontinence, retention, and frequency. These problems place a significant burden on patients' physical health and quality of life (QoL). There are a wide variety of bladder management strategies available to patients with no clear guidelines on appropriate selection. Inappropriate bladder management can cause hospitalizations and serious complications, such as urosepsis and renal failure. Patients believe that both independence and ability to carry out daily activities are just as important as physical health in selecting the right bladder-management strategy but little is known about patient's QoL with different bladder managements. Our study's aim is to assess patient reported QoL measures with various bladder managements after SCI. This manuscript describes the approach, study design and common data elements for our central study. METHODS: This is a multi-institutional prospective cohort study comparing three different bladder-management strategies (clean intermittent catheterization, indwelling catheters, and surgery). Information collected from participants includes demographics, past medical and surgical history, injury characteristics, current and past bladder management, and SCI /bladder-related complications. Patient reported outcomes and QoL questionnaires were administered at enrollment and every 3 months for 1 year. Aims of this study protocol are: (1) to assess baseline QoL differences between the three different bladder-management strategies; (2) determine QoL impact when those using either form of catheter management undergo a surgery over the 1 year of follow-up among patients eligible for surgery; (3) assess the effects of changes in bladder management and complications on QoL over a 1-year longitudinal follow-up. DISCUSSION: By providing information about patient-reported outcomes associated with different bladder management strategies after SCI, and the impact of bladder management changes and complications on QoL, this study will provide essential information for shared decision-making and guide future investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: www.clinicaltrials.gov : Identifier: NCT0261608; U.S. National Library of Medicine, wwwcf.nlm.nih.gov : Identifier: HSRP20153564.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207