Spinal cord injury patients: Effect of urinary intervention therapy type on quality of life, questionnaire-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to assess the quality of life (QoL) with or without surgical intervention in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) with neurogenic bladder. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on SCI patients with neurogenic bladder. The questionnaires used to assess the QoL were the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36), the Incontinence questionnaire [Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6)], the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Patients were categorized into two groups: the first group consisted of patients who underwent a surgical procedure and the second group included patients managed by a conservative treatment option: clean intermittent bladder catheterization. RESULTS: Total of 29 patients included in the study, 13 patients underwent urinary diversion (mean age: 45.84±16.41 years) and 16 patients had a conservative treatment (mean age: 47.61±13.90 years). The SF-36 questionnaire evaluation revealed that the bodily pain component was significantly lower in patients who underwent urinary diversion (p=0.009), whereas vitality (p=0.045) and social functioning (p=0.005) components were significantly lower in patients who underwent any type of urinary surgical procedure. The incontinence questionnaire (UDI-6) revealed significantly lower scores in patients who underwent urinary diversion (17.84±5.2) than patients who underwent a conservative treatment (47.05±5.8; p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Urinary surgical intervention improved the QoL in SCI patients with neurogenic bladder as per the UDI-6 scores. However, contrasting results of the SF-36 assessment warrant its further validation by conducting studies with a larger sample size.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".