Overnight Ambulatory Urodynamics Change Patient Management Strategies and Improve Symptomatic Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic value of overnight ambulatory urodynamics (aUDS) and to assess if a urodynamic diagnosis of detrusor overactivity (DO) or nocturnal enuresis resulted in a change in patient management and an improvement in their urinary symptoms.MethodsA retrospective review of 25 consecutive patients (28% male) with a median age of 38 years (range 18 to 86) having overnight aUDS for bothersome urinary symptoms of primarily nocturia and/or nocturnal enuresis following non-diagnostic conventional urodynamics between November 1998 and August 2018. Urinary symptoms were assessed before overnight aUDS and again after urological treatment following any changes in urodynamics diagnosis and treatment. Six patients were excluded as follow-up data were not available.ResultsTwenty-four patients (96%) presented with nocturia and 20 (80%) presented with nocturnal enuresis. DO was demonstrated in 19 (76%) patients (mean pressure 69.1±53.3 cmH2O). UUI was demonstrated in 16 (80%) out of the 20 patients who complained of nocturnal enuresis. Of the 19 patients with follow-up data, following overnight aUDS a change in urodynamic diagnosis was made in 15 patients (79%); 16 patients (84%) also had their clinical diagnosis and subsequent management changed; and 15 patients (79%) reported an improvement in their urinary symptoms following these changes in diagnosis and treatment. There was a significant improvement in ICIQ-OAB (120±44 versus 32±53, P < 0.0001) scores following the changes to clinical management post-overnight aUDS.ConclusionIn our study cohort, change in primary diagnosis following overnight aUDS led to a significant change in treatment care pathway and resulted in significant improvement in urinary symptoms at follow-up.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".