Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics to Prevent Urinary Tract Infection after Urodynamic Testing and Cystoscopy in Women: A Practice Pattern Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to determine practice patterns of prescribing prophylactic antibiotics against urinary tract infection (UTI) for urodynamic studies (UDS) and outpatient cystoscopy in women. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted of North American female pelvic medicine and reconstructive specialists (FPMRS). METHODS: An online survey was used to assess prophylactic prescribing patterns of FPMRS that perform UDS and outpatient cystoscopy. This survey was developed and then electronically disseminated through the American Urogynecologic Society to 699 eligible physicians. RESULTS: A total of 138 surveys were completed. Approximately half of physicians did not prescribe any antibiotic prophylaxis for UDS or for cystoscopy (54% and 43%, respectively). For patients with perceived risk factors (recurrent UTIs, immunosuppression, known neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, indwelling catheter use, elevated postvoid residual/bladder outlet obstruction, genitourinary anomalies, and diabetes), 32% and 41% of physicians prescribed antibiotic prophylaxis for UDS and cystoscopy, respectively. A minority of physicians always prescribed antibiotics for UDS and cystoscopy (13% and 17%, respectively). LIMITATIONS: The response rate was a limitation of the study; however, this rate is in keeping with other physician survey studies published within this subspecialty. Selection and response biases may have contributed to the results of this survey study. CONCLUSION: There was no uniform approach to UTI prophylaxis for UDS and outpatient cystoscopy in women which reflects the lack of current guidelines and the low level of evidence on which they are based. This nonuniform practice calls for more research to better define an evidence-based standard of care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".