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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".