Intermittent catheterization: Clinical practice guidelines from Association Française d’Urologie (AFU), Groupe de Neuro-urologie de Langue Française (GENULF), Société Française de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation (SOFMER) and Société Interdisciplinaire Francophone d’UroDynamique et de Pelvi-Périnéologie (SIFUD-PP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to provide guidelines covering all aspects of intermittent catheterisation (intermittent self-catheterisation and third-party intermittent catheterisation). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature based on Pubmed, Embase, Google scholar was initiated in December 2014 and updated in April 2019. Given the lack of robust data and the numerous unresolved controversial issues, guidelines were established based on the formal consensus of experts from steering, scoring and review panels. RESULTS: This allowed the formulation of 78 guidelines, extending from guidelines on indications for intermittent catheterisation, modalities for training and implementation, choice of equipment, management of bacteriuria and urinary tract infections, to the implementation of intermittent catheterisation in paediatric, geriatric populations, benign prostatic hyperplasia patients and continent urinary diversion patients with a cutaneous reservoir as well as other complications. These guidelines are pertinent to both intermittent self-catheterisation and third-party intermittent catheterisation. CONCLUSION: These are the first comprehensive guidelines specifically aimed at intermittent catheterisation and extend to all aspects of intermittent catheterisation. They assist in the clinical decision-making process, specifically in relation to indications and modalities of intermittent catheterisation options. These guidelines are intended for urologists, gynaecologists, geriatricians, paediatricians, neurologists, physical and rehabilitation physicians, general practitioners and other health professionals including nurses, carers….
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".