Mid-Urethral Sling for Stress Incontinence: Does Urodynamic Pressure Reading Affect Post-Operative Outcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of our study was to determine the effect of preoperative urodynamic reading of valsalva leak point pressure on the result of mid-urethral sling surgery. From January 2010 to December 2014, a total of 207 patients underwent mid-urethral sling surgery at the Toronto Western Hospital. An incontinence questionnaire was sent to 94 patients who accepted to be involved in the study to examine satisfaction post-surgery. Forty-five patients replied and were included in the analysis. The patients were divided into three groups according to valsalva leak point pressure (< 60, 60-80 and > 80 cm H2O) determined on urodynamic testing. Of the forty-five patients who responded to the questionnaire, seven were excluded for only having had stress testing done and two were excluded due to intermittent catheterization. Thirteen patients had evidence of detrusor overactivity on urodynamic testing. Simple linear regression analysis was done for the three groups of the valsalva leak point pressure values and correlation to satisfaction was found -0.263, -0.236, and -0.148, respectively. In this current study, we could not find a relation between valsalva leak point pressure values and the self-reported satisfaction post-surgical correction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".