How Do Surgical Interventions for Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Impact Quality of Life?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Adult patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) often have urinary symptoms that impact their quality of life (QOL). Our objective is to identify and summarize studies evaluating QOL changes across different NLUTD surgical interventions. METHODS: A systematic rapid evidence review was carried using EMBASE and MEDLINE. We included adult patients (> 18 years old) with NLUTD who underwent a relevant surgery and had a measurement of QOL. We included pre-post study designs (primary focus) and cross-sectional studies (secondary focus). Studies were reviewed and data extracted by multiple assessors. Standardized data extraction tables were used, and qualitative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 1074 screened articles 26 were included. There were 3/15 studies that evaluated reconstructive surgery (augmentation and/or catheterisable channel) pre-post intervention (n = 94 patients); there was a 7%-28% relative improvement in bladder related and overall QOL using validated questionnaires, and a large magnitude of improvement in studies using unvalidated questionnaires. There were 3/7 studies that looked at urinary diversion pre-post intervention (n = 153 patients) and showed an approximately 20%-60% improvement in validated questionnaires assessing bladder specific quality of life, and 0%-25% improvement in overall quality of life. Finally, 3/4 studies were pre-post stress incontinence surgeries (n = 67 patients) and they found an improvement in the ICIQ questionnaire scores and study-specific questionnaires. CONCLUSION: The literature supporting a change in QOL in adult NLUTD patients undergoing surgical interventions is extremely limited due to a lack of pre-post studies, and the frequent use of unvalidated outcome measures.
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 | 0.013 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".