Urotherapy in children with dysfunctional voiding and the responsiveness of two condition‐specific questionnaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We sought to establish the responsiveness of the Dutch Vancouver Symptom Score for Dysfunctional Elimination Syndrome (VSSDES) and Pediatric urinary incontinence Quality of life (PinQ) questionnaires. Secondary, we evaluated the outcome of urotherapy extended for children with dysfunctional voiding (DV). METHODS: This cross-sectional multicenter study was done in one tertiary and two community hospitals. Children with DV were included, also when refractory to previous urotherapeutic treatment. The questionnaires were completed before and after urotherapy. The primary outcome measure was the responsiveness of the Dutch VSDESS and PinQ. Secondary outcome was the initial success (defined by the International Children's Continence Society) of extended urotherapy. RESULTS: Between June 2014 and May 2016, 64 children (median age 7 years, IQR 6-10) received urotherapy (median 18 weeks, IQR 11-28). In contrast to the VSSDES, the PinQ showed good responsiveness. For children and parents, respectively, the area under the ROC-curve was 0.79 (P = 0.01) and 0.72 (P = 0.03) for the PinQ and 0.50 (P = 0.98) and 0.55 (P = 0.62) for the VSSDES. Fifty children received extended urotherapy, 27 had complete, and 14 had partial response. Sixteen children had been refractory to previous treatment; four showed complete, and six showed partial response. CONCLUSION: The PinQ is able to detect clinically important changes in continence-specific quality of life after treatment. We support the use of the VSSDES questionnaire in addition to the current diagnostics for the diagnosis of DV. Extended urotherapy showed to be a successful treatment for children with DV, also for those who had received previous unsuccessful treatment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".