MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804009546 · doi:10.1111/bju.14399

Guideline of guidelines: bladder pain syndrome

2018· review· en· W2804009546 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineCystoscopyInterstitial cystitisMEDLINEBladder Pain SyndromePelvic painUrinary incontinenceIntensive care medicineFamily medicineGynecologyAlternative medicinePathologyUrologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Bladder pain syndrome (BPS) is a debilitating condition which can be difficult to diagnose and treat due to the lack of consensus on aetiology, definition, and management. The aim of this review is to summarise the findings from major national and international guidelines on the management of BPS, highlighting areas of disagreement and uncertainty. METHODS: We performed a Medline/PubMed search from 1st January 2000 to 31st December 2017 in order to identify relevant guidelines addressing BPS/interstitial cystitis. We also manually searched the websites of major national and international societies. The following guidelines were included in this review: European Association of Urology, American Urological Association, International Society for the Study of BPS, International Consultation on Incontinence, International Continence Society, East Asian guideline, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists/British Society of Urogynaecology, and the Canadian Urological Association. RESULTS: There is disagreement between guidelines on the exact definition of BPS and the nomenclature to use to describe this condition. However, all agree that the diagnosis is dependent on the presence of pain, pressure, or discomfort, in addition to at least one urinary symptom, in the absence of other diseases that could cause pain. Exclusion of other pathology that could cause similar symptoms requires thorough evaluation, and is recommended in all guidelines. There is also disparity in the recommended diagnostic investigation of BPS, with hydrodistension and bladder biopsy either recommended, considered optional, or not recommended, by different guidelines. It is accepted that BPS can be diagnosed clinically, without invasive investigation, but cystoscopy and diagnostic hydrodistension aids sub-typing of patients and may help direct treatment strategies. Patients should be phenotyped in order to direct multimodal treatment (including behavioural, physical, emotional, and psychological therapy), and treatments should follow a stepwise approach starting with the most conservative. Although widely performed, hydrodistension as a therapeutic strategy has a limited evidence base and is unlikely to provide long-term resolution of symptoms CONCLUSION: There are multiple national and international guidelines for the diagnosis and management of BPS, and this review has highlighted the differences in nomenclature, definitions, and recommended diagnostic tests between guidelines. The overall evidence base for the majority of treatments for BPS/IC is of low-quality, and larger randomised trials are required to more accurately inform guideline recommendations and clinical management of this complex group of 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.314 · 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