A Scoping Review of the Oral Treatment Options for the Management of Detrusor Sphincter Dyssynergia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adult neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction may be associated with detrusor sphincter dyssynergia (DSD). Given the sparsity of the literature and the absence of official guidelines regarding the use of oral medications in the management of DSD, this scoping review aims to critically assess the available evidence to guide future research and practice. METHODS: We conducted a systematic scoping review of articles published from 1950 to July 2023 using PubMed, MedLine, Scopus and CINAHL databases to assess all oral treatment options for DSD. All study designs were included. The search was limited to English and French literature regarding human patients over 18 years of age with DSD. RESULTS: Of the 899 records screened, 15 studies were included, involving a total of 257 participants. Alpha-adrenergic blockers, nitric oxyde and muscle relaxants have been used in the treatment of DSD. A decrease of postvoid residual volumes and an improvement of symptom scores as well as urine flow rates were reported in several studies. Regarding the alpha-adrenergic blockers, five of the six studies that detailed postvoid residual volumes and subjective improvement noted benefits in most patients. Additionally, two of the three studies that addressed mean flow rate observed improvements in most patients. All six studies that documented adverse effects found side effects in only a slight minority of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Alpha-adrenergic blockers are promising, but there is lacking evidence on the oral treatment of DSD. This study highlights the importance of conducting more studies to draw solid conclusions and stop treating these patients empirically.
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 | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".