ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Adherence to guidelines in the management of urolithiasis: are there differences among distinct patient care settings?
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Kidney stone disease Practice patterns among urologists in Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding stone formation and recurrence among urolithiasis patients: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.Central European journal of urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUrolithiasis is a common diagnosis in urology. New technologies offer a variety of diagnostic and therapy and consequently display a financial burden on healthcare systems. Hence, clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are essential to implement evidence-based medicine and assure a standard of care considering limited resources. To date, there is no evidence of the use and adherence to CPG on urolithiasis. MATERIAL AND
methodsTherefore, we performed a cross-sectional study to analyze the use of CPG on urolithiasis. Data collection was carried out by a questionnaire given to 400 German urologists. The survey included use and adherence to guidelines, evaluation of the clinical situation, therapy spectrum, and workplace. In total, 150 (37%) questionnaires were received and included in our survey. Statistics were performed by SPSS using Chi-quadrat test/Fisher's exact test.
resultsIn our study, urologists were office based, hospital affiliated, non-academic, or academic centers in 53%, 32%, 16% and 5%, respectively. In 74% and 70%, urologists adhere to CPG in diagnostic and therapy. Interestingly, workplace and therapy spectrum determines the use of different CPG (p = 0.01; p = 0.022). Academic urologists were more likely to use international CPG of EAU (40%), while outpatient urologists significantly orientated on national CPG (46%). 86% of urologists with high volume of urolithiasis practice interventions in contrast to 53% in low volume (p = 0.001). More than 80% of urologists use short versions and app version of CPG.
conclusionWe firstly describe compliance and the use of CPG on urolithiasis. EAU and DGU present the most commonly used CPG. Short version and app version of CPG find frequent clinical utilization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33388879What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.