MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947721694 · doi:10.1111/bju.14829

The impact of bariatric surgery on urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2019· review· en· W2947721694 on OpenAlexaff
Yung Lee, James Yu, Kari A.O. Tikkinen, Michał Pędziwiatr, Piotr Major, Ishan Aditya, Yonah Krakowsky, Aristithes G. Doumouras, Scott Gmora, Mehran Anvari, Dennis Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemMcMaster UniversityWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamilton General Hospital
FundersKaiser Permanente
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisUrinary incontinenceCochrane LibraryMEDLINEConfidence intervalSystematic reviewSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and meta-analyse the impact of bariatric surgery on obese patients with urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: A search of the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed to June 2018 was performed using methods pre-published on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing UI status in obese patients before and after bariatric surgery were included. Primary outcomes were the improvement or complete resolution of any UI, stress UI (SUI), and urgency UI (UUI). Secondary outcomes were validated UI questionnaire scores. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach assessed overall quality of evidence. RESULTS: In all, 33 cohort studies (2910 patients) were included (median follow-up 12 months). Bariatric surgery resulted in improvement or resolution of any UI in 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48-63%), SUI in 47% (95% CI 34-60%), and UUI in 53% (95% CI 32-73%) of patients. Moreover, bariatric surgery significantly decreased (P < 0.001) questionnaire scores such as: the Urogenital Distress Inventory by 13.4 points (95% CI 7.2-19.6), International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire by 4.0 points (95% CI 2.3-5.7), and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire by 5.3 points (95% CI 3.9-6.6). However, worsening or new onset of UI was present in 3% of patients. The quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: Half of obese patients report improvement or resolution of UI after bariatric surgery, but overall the quality of evidence is very low. Comparative studies examining the benefits of bariatric surgery in obese patients with UI are warranted.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.036
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207