MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415490119 · doi:10.14740/jcgo1521

Socioeconomic, Demographic, and Provider Determinants of Staged Versus Concomitant Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence

2025· article· en· W4415490119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaime B. Long, Krista Reagan, Ryoko Sato, Shunaha Kim-Fine, Kristen A. Gerjevic, Sarah S. Boyd, Olubiyi Aworunse, Cara L. Grimes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsConcomitantUrinary incontinenceLogistic regressionRetrospective cohort studyComorbidityOdds ratioCohortPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While concomitant surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may benefit patients, variability exists in practice. A better understanding of the decision-making process regarding the placement of mid-urethral slings (MUSs) in women undergoing POP surgery is crucial for achieving equitable surgical planning and patient counselling. This study assessed factors associated with staged vs. concomitant SUI surgery in patients undergoing POP surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files from 2016 to 2020. The sample population consisted of female patients surgically treated for POP with staged (within 24 months) or concomitant mid-urethral sling (MUS). Data were merged with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Social Determinants of Health Database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess independent associations between patient, location, and surgeon characteristics and the likelihood of staged versus concomitant procedures. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Among 40,842 patients with POP surgery, 96.7% (39,440) had concomitant, while 3.4% (1,402) had staged MUS. Most were aged 65 - 74 years (67.2%), Caucasian (91.7%), from urban areas (91.9%), and had Charlson Comorbidity Index ≤ 3 (82.3%). A higher likelihood of staged surgery was seen in White vs. other racial groups (example OR: 1.50 vs. Black, 95% CI: 1.03 - 2.18); in the South vs. other regions (example OR: 1.55 vs. Northeast, 95% CI: 1.26 - 1.91); and for obstetrics/gynecology vs. urologic surgeons (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.02 - 1.40). Patients in counties with lower per capita income (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.03), lower proportions of foreign-born (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.05), limited English-speaking (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.05), or uninsured (< 64 years of age; OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00 - 1.03) households had higher likelihood of receiving staged surgery. Conclusions: This study identified several demographic, socioeconomic, and surgeon-related factors associated with staged vs. concomitant MUS procedures among patients undergoing surgery for POP. The reasons for these differences are not fully understood and may reflect various underlying factors, including differences in communication, regional or specialty norms, patient choice, or other factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207