Intravesical botulinum toxin: Practice patterns from a survey of Canadian urologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to conduct a survey of intravesical botulinum toxin administration practices in Canada, to compare practices based on level of training, and to identify barriers to delivery. METHODS: A voluntary online survey was sent to all members of the Canadian Urological Association. Respondents who provide intravesical botulinum toxin were questioned on training, surgical volume, workup, technique, and followup practices. Those with formal training in functional urology were compared to those without. Barriers to treatment delivery were identified. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 26% (148/570). Most providers (59%) perform 1-10 treatments/month. Preoperatively, 51% perform cystoscopy and 43% perform urodynamics. A majority (66%) give routine antimicrobial prophylaxis; however, regimen and duration varied. Most (79%) perform some treatments under local anesthetic, and 66% instill lidocaine solution for analgesia. There was a wide variation in technique with regards to the number of injections administered (range <10 to >20), volume administered per injection (range 0.5-2 mL), location of injections (bladder body vs. trigone vs. both), and depth of injection. Postoperative followup ranged from three days to three months. Respondents with fellowship training in functional/reconstructive urology performed more treatments per month and administered fewer injections per treatment. Common barriers to delivery included lack of experience/training among non-providers (45%), lack of resources (34%), and lack of medication funding (32%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite intravesical botulinum toxin being a widely accepted treatment, significant variability in practices and several barriers to delivery exist in Canada. Further study is required to optimize treatment access and quality.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".