Disposable flexible cystoscopes for removing double J catheter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We conducted a budget impact analysis to evaluate the cost of removing double J catheters using single-use flexible digital cystoscopes compared to reusable cystoscopes at the CHU de Québec. METHODS: The UETMIS of CHU de Québec estimated average costs per intervention for both reusable and single-use flexible cystoscopes in the endoscopy room. Costs included purchase, repair, reprocessing, and sterilization for reusable cystoscopes based on data from 2017-2019. For single-use cystoscopes, the unit price and technical platform costs were considered. Annual costs were calculated using the average cost per procedure and the annual volume of double J catheter removals. RESULTS: The average cost per intervention for reusable flexible cystoscopes was estimated at $148.55, while for single-use digital flexible cystoscopes, it was $293.38. For 385 annual double J catheter removals, the total cost would be $57 191.75 with reusable cystoscopes and $112 951.30 with single-use cystoscopes. This represents an additional cost of $144.83 per procedure or $55 760 annually when using single-use cystoscopes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of single-use flexible digital cystoscopes for double J catheter removal at CHU de Québec would nearly double the cost per procedure compared to reusable cystoscopes. This cost difference is primarily due to the purchase price of single-use devices. While cystoscope breakage is infrequent, the potential for higher breakage risk during double J catheter removal could reduce the cost differential. Future implementation of patient-focused financing might alter the economic evaluation of single-use cystoscopes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".