Performance of Urodynamics During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Questionnaire Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims The principal aim of this multicentre, international cohort study is to explore the safety concerns of clinicians when performing urodynamic studies (UDS) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study will also assess provider preference on personal protective equipment (PPE) during UDS and awareness of relevant international guidelines. The outcome is to offer a practical means of reducing the risk of aerosol transmis-sion during UDS, to include a protocol for screening patients, and to consider safer methods of inducing urethral leak-point pressure. Methods A 14-point, multiple-response, online questionnaire was designed through Survey Monkey. This was distributed to healthcare workers involved in UDS via email, WhatsApp, and Twitter. This included, of varying experience; urologists, urogynaecologists, clinical nurse specialists, and clinical scientists across the United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Australia, Europe, and Middle-East. Results The study was conducted over two weeks and there were 104 responses to the survey. The majority of respondents were consultants (60%) and 73% of respondents performed UDS regularly. There were 56.7% of respondents who felt that UDS was safe to be re-instated and there were 52.8% who did not feel coughing was safe during the procedure. At the time of the survey, 83.5% were unaware of any national or international urological guidelines on the best practice for urodynamics during this era and 52.8% of clinicians stated they would wear PPE during UDS if it were reinstated. Conclusion The majority of respondents felt safe to reinstate UDS; however, they felt more official guidance and recommendation is needed. Our proposed protocol can provide a safe and practical approach that keeps healthcare workers and patients safe.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".