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

Guideline of guidelines: bladder pain syndrome

2018· review· en· W2804009546 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sachin Malde, Stefano Palmisani, Adnan Al‐Kaisy, Arun Sahai

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.014

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

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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations125
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207