An International Delphi-Based Study for Developing a Core Outcome Set for Hypospadias Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Explicit outcomes routinely measured across the life span following hypospadias surgery, defined by a core outcome set (COS), will harmonize and overcome reporting heterogeneity. METHODS: Age-specific outcomes identified in a literature review were presented in a three-round Delphi survey. Participants (professionals, parents, and patients) were encouraged to suggest outcomes in the first Delphi round. In subsequent rounds, participants were asked to choose and rank up to five preferred outcomes for each age. To be deemed core, an outcome needed over 70% of votes in a round. RESULTS: Professionals were mainly paediatric urologists (rounds 1, 2, 3: n = 57 [77%], 39 [78%], 35 [81%]). The response rates from parents/patients (rounds 1, 2, 3: n = 17, 5, 3) were low. In young boys (<6 years, 10-11 years), four core outcomes were identical (voiding, fistula, re-operation, and urethral stricture). Core outcomes in boys aged 11-16 years (cosmesis, curvature, voiding, stricture, and psychosocial status) and boys >16 years (cosmesis, curvature, erection, voiding, and psychosexual development) varied more. CONCLUSION: Outcomes to include in a COS were consistent in younger boys. A larger variety was observed in older boys and reflects less clarity on relevant outcomes.
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 | 0.340 | 0.230 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".