A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Irrigation “Bag Squeeze” to Manage Pain for Patients Undergoing Flexible Cystoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We determined if the "bag squeeze" technique decreases pain during flexible cystoscopy in men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single center, prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial recruited 200 consenting participants who were ambulatory, outpatient males who had undergone prior cystoscopy and were not expected to require any secondary procedures. Men with prior urethral stricture or bladder neck contracture were excluded from study. Once eligibility was assessed and consent obtained, participants were randomized to undergo cystoscopy with the bag squeeze (group A) or the sham bag squeeze procedure (group B). Following cystoscopy, participants completed a pain questionnaire (visual analogue scale). Differences in mean pain score between groups were evaluated using Students' t-test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were randomized and underwent flexible cystoscopy. Ten participants were ineligible because they required secondary procedures. Among the 190 eligible patients 97 were randomized to bag squeeze (group A) and 93 to sham bag squeeze (group B) with mean pain scores of 1.91 and 3.39, respectively (p <0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a clinically meaningful decrease in pain for men undergoing flexible cystoscopy when the irrigation bag squeeze technique was used vs placebo bag squeeze. Accordingly, this useful, simple and free method to improve patient comfort during flexible cystoscopy should be adopted by clinicians.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".