Effectiveness of medical treatment in overcoming the ureteral double-J stent related symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We investigated whether the frequency of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) increased in patients in whom double-J stents were applied. We also evaluated several medical therapy protocols to treat symptoms related with ureteral stents.Materials and Methods: A total of 108 patients, in whom unilateral double-j stent was applied during ureteral stone treatment, were included. Before the double-J stent was applied, all patients completed storage components of the “International Prostate Symptom Score” (IPSSs), quality of life components of the IPSS (IPSS-QOL) and “Overactive Bladder Questionnaire” (OABq) forms and scores were calculated. After the procedure, cases were randomized into 5 groups, an antiinflammatory was given to Group 1, spasmolytic to Group 2, anticholinergic to Group 3 and α-blocker to Group 4. No additional drug was given to Group 5 as this control group. During the fourth week of the procedure, IPSSs, IPSS-QOL and OABq forms were again completed and scores were compared with the previous ones.Results: When all the cases were evaluated, the IPSSs, IPSS-QOLand OABq scores of patients in whom the double-J stent was applied were statistically significantly higher the procedure. Compared to the control group, the cases where the double-J stent was applied showed a higher IPSSs, IPSS-QOL and OABq scores and none of the medical therapies could prevent this increase.Interpretation: The frequency of LUTS increased in cases where the ureteral stent was applied and discomfort continued as long as the stent stayed in the body.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".