Urinary incontinence in older men: protocol for a scoping review of risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence (UI) is common among older men. Epidemiological studies have established many risk factors for UI but these studies are not always specific to men aged 65 and above. The literature is yet to be systematically and comprehensively reviewed to identify UI risk factors specific to these men. Such evidence is required for the development of evidence-based interventions. This scoping review will synthesise evidence regarding UI risk factors in older men. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method for scoping reviews will guide the conduct of this scoping review and its reporting alongside the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews checklist. JBI's Population, Concept and Context framework is used to frame inclusion criteria, and JBI's scoping review protocol template was used to format this protocol. Our comprehensive search will include Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library (via Wiley) and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. There will be no language restriction since approximately 10% of preliminary search results were in languages other than English. Study type or publication date will not be restricted. Besides databases, we will review Google Scholar results and bibliographies. Two independent reviewers will screen, select and extract eligible studies. A preliminary search was performed on 24 May 2022. The search strategy and data extraction template are in online supplemental appendix. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of data will be performed as a means of describing the risk factors for UI identified among older men by using frequencies and descriptive methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The review does not require ethics approval. Findings will be disseminated at conferences, in a peer-reviewed journal and used to inform the development of an evidence-based tool for self-management of UI in older men.
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 | 0.109 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.024 |
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".