A Prospective Audit of Urinary Tract Infection Incidence Following the use of Endosheath® for Flexible Cystoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Objectives To assess the incidence of bacteriuria and urinary tract infection following use of Endosheath®, and to assess patient comfort and satisfaction post-procedure. Patients and Methods One hundred thirty-five patients undergoing Endosheath® flexible cystoscopy (FC) were prospectively identified. Patients were excluded if pre-procedure urinalysis or symptoms suggested infection. Those who underwent FC were asked to provide a urine sample 72 hours post-procedure, assessing for bacterial culture and sensitivity. Patients completed a questionnaire assessing comfort, pain and whether they would recommend the procedure to others if required. Results Of the 135 patients, 117 patients returned their post-procedure samples and processed. Thirteen (11.1%) of the urine cultures samples were positive. Four (3.4%) of this 13 patients had symptoms of urinary tract infection (UTI) and were treated with antibiotics. One hundred and seven (79%) patients found the procedure comfortable and 104 (77%) patients would recommend the procedure to others. Conclusions Flexible Cystoscopy utilising Endosheath® appears to have comparable incidence of bacteriuria and UTI post procedure compared with standard FC, and is well tolerated by most 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".