Penile compression devices for the treatment of urinary incontinence: current status and future prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence (UI), especially stress UI, is common after prostatectomy. Penile compression devices (PCDs) may be a safe, tolerable option for conservative management in men who are not candidates for or not interested in surgical intervention for their UI. AREAS COVERED: This article examines the epidemiology of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI), and options for management. All available studies on PCDs are explored, including those on biomechanics, safety, tolerability, and user experience. History, availability of PCDs, and areas for future development are discussed. EXPERT OPINION: PCDs are an option for conservative management of PPI. They are recommended for those men without impairment in cognition, dexterity, or sensation. They should be worn for short periods of time and are best used during situations when incontinence might be precipitated. Overall, data suggest they are well tolerated and effective when tested, but large randomized comparative trials and studies of long-term use with relevant patient reported outcome measures are lacking. More studies are needed on commercially available PCDs. Biomechanical studies suggest that there are superior designs and materials both for efficacy and tolerability. With an aging population, and more older men going for prostate surgery, a larger market for these devices is likely.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".