MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112680299 · doi:10.1002/nau.24584

Deciphering the enigma of female urethral strictures: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of management modalities

2020· review· en· W3112680299 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Indira Sarin, Tushar Aditya Narain, Vikas Kumar Panwar, Ajeet Singh Bhadoria, Howard B. Goldman, Ankur Mittal

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurourology and Urodynamics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrethroplastyMedicineMeta-analysisSystematic reviewSurgeryUrethral strictureMEDLINERandomized controlled trialUrethraInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the management methods of female urethral stricture (FUS) and analyze the outcomes of surgical treatments. A meta-analysis was done in an attempt to identify the best approach of urethroplasty and the graft-of-choice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of Pubmed/Medline and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis statement, for articles reporting on FUS management in the last decade. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of 28 included non-randomized studies. The data on FUS management was summarized and pooled success rates (taken as symptom improvement and no need for further instrumentation) were compared. The secondary outcome was to establish a diagnostic modality of choice and define a "successful-outcome" of repair. RESULTS: The outcome was separately reported for 554 women undergoing surgical intervention for FUS in the literature. The criteria defining FUS were varied. A combination of tests was used for diagnosis as none was singularly conclusive. A total of 301 patients had previous urethral instrumentations. The pooled success rate of urethral dilatation (234 women) was 49% at a mean follow-up of 32 months; flap urethroplasty (108 cases) was 92% at a mean follow-up of 42 months; buccal mucosal graft (BMG) urethroplasty (133 cases) was 89% at a mean follow-up of 19 months; vaginal graft augmentation (44 cases) was 87% at a mean follow-up of 15 months; and labial graft reconstruction (19 cases) was 89% at a mean follow-up of 18.4 months. The dorsal approach of graft augmentation met with 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.95) success compared with 95% (95% CI 0.86-1) for the ventral approach. CONCLUSION: FUS is a rare condition requiring a meticulous diagnostic workup using multiple tests. All urethroplasties have shown better pooled success rates (86%-93%) compared with dilatation (49%). BMG is equally effective as vaginal graft urethroplasty.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurourology and UrodynamicsSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207