How long do we have to treat overactive bladder syndrome? A questionnaire survey of Canadian urologists and gynecologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) is a highly prevalent and costly condition worldwide with negative impact on health-related quality of life. Although many guidelines exist and anticholinergics are considered to be the mainstay of pharmacological treatment, data are lacking regarding optimal treatment duration. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine practice patterns of Canadian urologists and gynecologists regarding duration of OAB pharmacotherapy. METHODS: A 14-question survey was designed and survey links (English and French) were sent by email to all practicing urologists and gynecologists registered with the Canadian Urological Association and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada via the associations' email lists. The SurveyMonkey website served as platform where responses were collected and stored. RESULTS: A total of 301 physicians completed the questionnaire; 250 respondents (83%) prescribe anticholinergics or beta-3-adrenoceptor agonist (mirabegron) in their practice, and 202 (81%) start patient treatment with the lowest recommended medication dose. One hundred and twelve respondents (45% of those who prescribe OAB medications) classified OAB pharmacotherapy as a lifelong management strategy, whereas 130 (52% of those who prescribe OAB medications) think that OAB pharmacotherapy should be administered for a defined time period. Six-month and one-year time periods of drug treatments are the most commonly chosen answers given by physicians who treat their patients for a defined duration. CONCLUSION: There is general agreement among Canadian urologists and gynecologists that OAB treatment should be started with the lowest recommended medication dose. A slim majority of respondents think that OAB pharmacotherapy should be administered for a defined duration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".