Intermittent Catheterization: The Devil Is in the Details
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last few years, the international community debated urinary tract infection and re-use of catheters when managing neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) among individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). In this respect, the 2014 Cochrane review by Prieto and colleagues, "Intermittent catheterisation for long-term bladder management," became one of the leading documents that captured the minds and attention of clinicians around the world. Although numerous countries had switched to single-use catheters for management of NLUTD following SCI, the opinion that was expressed in the 2014 Cochrane review had a strong influence on healthcare providers and agencies to recommend re-use of catheters. However, many clinicians have expressed concern regarding the conclusions in the 2014 Cochrane review by Prieto and colleagues. We therefore conducted an independent appraisal of the data and analyses presented in the review. Our appraisal identified crucial discrepancies of data extraction and analyses within the review. In appraisal to that of Prieto and colleagues' review, our analysis revealed a trend to favor single over multiple use of catheters. After addressing our concerns to Cochrane's acting Editor-in-Chief, the most recent version of the 2014 Cochrane review was withdrawn from publication.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".