MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048040943 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004027

Two Intraoperative Techniques for Midurethral Sling Tensioning

2020· article· en· W3048040943 on OpenAlexaff
Erin A. Brennand, Guosong Wu, Sara Houlihan, Dobrochna Globerman, Louise-Helene Gagnon, Colin Birch, Momoe Hyakutake, Kevin Carlson, Hanan Alshankiti, Magali Robert, Darren Lazare, Shunaha Kim-Fine

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSling (weapon)Urinary incontinenceSurgeryRandomized controlled trialUrinary retentionUrethraStress incontinenceUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the use of a Mayo Scissor as a suburethral spacer compared with a Babcock clamp holding a loop of tape under the urethra results in different rates of abnormal bladder outcomes 12 months after retropubic midurethral sling surgery. METHODS: The MUST (Mid-Urethral Sling Tensioning) trial was a block-randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial that allocated women to have their retropubic midurethral slings tensioned by Scissor or Babcock technique. The primary outcome (abnormal bladder) was a composite of persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI), overactive bladder, and urinary retention. Secondary outcomes included outcomes of the composite, postoperative catheterization, incontinence-related questionnaires, repeat incontinence treatment, and uroflowmetry. Sample size of 159 in each arm (N=318) was planned for a superiority trial, hypothesizing a 10% difference in primary outcome. RESULTS: From September 2015 to December 2017, 506 women were screened and 318 were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar in each arm. At 12 months, 253 (79.6%) women provided information on primary outcome: 40 of 128 (31.3%) patients with midurethral slings tensioned by Scissor experienced abnormal bladder, compared with 23 of 125 (18.4%) of those with midurethral slings tensioned by Babcock (P=.018, relative difference 12.9%). Secondary analyses favored Babcock for median duration of catheterization and the proportions of women experiencing urinary retention requiring sling lysis. Uroflowmetry parameters suggest the Scissor technique is more restrictive. Rates of mesh erosion were lower for the Scissor arm. No differences occurred in proportions of women experiencing patient reported persistent SUI after surgery. CONCLUSION: Abnormal bladder outcomes were 12.9% less frequent for women with midurethral slings tensioned by Babcock. Both techniques provided a comparable patient reported cure for SUI at 12 months. Women with midurethral slings tensioned by Scissors experienced more intervention for obstruction, whereas those with midurethral slings tensioned by Babcock experienced higher rates of mesh erosion. This information about how the postoperative courses differ allows surgeons to better counsel patients preoperatively or tailor their choice of technique. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02480231. FUNDING SOURCE: Boston Scientific.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207