Management of infected indwelling ureteral stents: An international survey of urologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are no clinical guidelines for the manipulation of chronic indwelling ureteral stents. The goal of this study was to survey, through a simulated case, how urologists initially manage a patient with a chronic ureteral stent presenting with urosepsis. METHODS: An online questionnaire was shared from July 1 to August 31, 2021, through social media (Twitter) and email lists. The scenario described a 50-year-old female, known for a chronic indwelling ureteral stent, presenting to the emergency department with fever, tachycardia, and flank pain. In the scenario, the stent was in adequate position and the last exchange had been performed one month prior. Respondents could choose between treating with antibiotics and keeping the same exchange schedule, urgent stent exchange, or an alternative management that they defined. P<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 396 participants completed the survey. Responses from 48 countries were collected, with 135 (34.1%) respondents from Canada. Half (50%) of respondents had more than 10 years of experience. Most (79.3%) respondents opted for initial empiric antibiotic therapy, while 16.2% opted for urgent stent exchange. A total of 19 (4.9%) medical specialists completed the survey. Non-urologists opted more frequently than urologists (42.1% vs. 16.2%) for urgent stent exchange (p=0.0111). CONCLUSIONS: This questionnaire allowed us to explore the various managements proposed by urologists in a patient with urosepsis and chronic indwelling ureteral stent. Most urologists opted for initial medical management. Further clinical studies could help determine the necessity for ureteral stent manipulation in urosepsis, and, if present, its ideal timing.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".