Post‐prostatectomy incontinence: a guideline of guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To provide a comprehensive review of guidelines from various professional organisations on the work-up and management of post-prostatectomy Incontinence (PPI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following guidelines were included in this review: European Association of Urology (EAU 2023), American Urological Association/Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (AUA/SUFU 2019), International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI, 2018), the Canadian Urological Association (CUA, 2012) and the Urological Society of India (USI, 2018). RESULTS: In general, the guidelines concur regarding the significance of conducting a comprehensive history and physical examination for patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI). However, there are variations among the guidelines concerning the recommended additional investigations. In cases of troublesome PPI, male slings are typically recommended for mild to moderate urinary incontinence (UI), while artificial urinary sphincters are preferred for moderate to severe UI, although the precise definition of this severity remains unclear. The guidelines provided by AUA/SUFU and the ICI have offered suggestions for managing complications or persistent/recurrent UI post-surgery, though some differences can be observed within these recommendations as well. CONCLUSION: This is a first of its kind review encompassing Guidelines on PPI spanning over a decade. Although guidelines share overarching principles, nuanced variations persist, posing challenges for clinicians. This compilation consolidates and highlights both the similarities and differences among guidelines, providing a comprehensive overview of PPI diagnosis and management for practitioners. It is our expectation that as more evidence emerges in this and other areas of PPI management, the guidelines will converge and address crucial patient-centric aspects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".