Use of the penile cuff test to diagnose bladder outlet obstruction: A systematic review and <scp>meta‐analysis</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Among noninvasive modalities for assessing bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), the penile cuff test (PCT) is the most used in clinical practice. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the performance of PCT in diagnosing and managing BOO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for studies investigating use of PCT for BOO. Studies evaluating diagnostic parameters, inter-observer agreements, or treatment outcomes using PCT were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol was followed (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022300047). A proportional meta-analysis was done for diagnostic accuracy proportions. The Egger's and the Begg-Mazumdar rank-correlation tests were used to assess publication bias. Risk of bias was assessed using the Gradings of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. RESULTS: Of the 272 articles retrieved, 17 were included in qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis was performed on five studies (comprising 448 patients). Two studies evaluating inter-observer agreement demonstrated 95% agreement and five studies evaluating procedures reported a 66%-80% surgical success rate on obstructed patients using PCT. From the proportional meta-analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 0.85 (95% CI 0.71-0.95) 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.87), 0.74 (95% CI 0.52-0.91), and 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-0.96), respectively. Publication bias was noted for PPV but not for sensitivity, specificity, or NPV. Based on the GRADE criteria, there were two low, six moderate, and nine high-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: PCT performs sufficiently in diagnosing and managing BOO. However, due to variability in obstruction criteria assessment, more studies comparing diagnostic criteria are warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".