ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Local clinical practice patterns in urolithiasis guidelines: a critical evaluation from Turkey.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the current clinical practice patterns regarding the utilization of "Urolithiasis Guidelines" in Turkey and to identify critical factors influencing their application by urologists.
methodsThe study targeted practicing urologists in Turkey, primarily those involved in the management of urolithiasis, to assess their perspectives and experiences regarding the clinical application of established guidelines. A total of 415 urology specialists were invited to participate in a survey-based study conducted via Google Forms. Participation was voluntary, and 65.08% of the invited urologists completed the survey.
resultsAmong the respondents, 84.7% reported utilizing the available guidelines in their routine clinical practice, with varying frequencies of reference. The primary motivations for guideline use were the prevention of potential complications and the avoidance of legal risks, as indicated by 90.5% of respondents. While 56.9% of participants adhered to the guidelines as a clinically standardized practice, 41.6% reported applying the recommendations on a case-by-case basis. Notably, 41.0% of respondents emphasized the need for locally adapted versions of guideline texts. Additionally, nearly half of the participants reported receiving no formal education or training on the significance, content, and practical application of these guidelines. Furthermore, 12.7% expressed skepticism about the evidence-based foundation of the guidelines, questioning whether the recommendations were derived from rigorously conducted studies.
conclusionThe available urolithiasis guidelines are recognized as valuable resources offering key recommendations for the effective and safe management of urolithiasis. However, findings from this survey highlight significant variability in clinical practice patterns due to local conditions and the individual experience and attitudes of practicing urologists. The application of guideline recommendations is further influenced by perceptions regarding their development, content, and practicality. Insights gathered from this study may contribute to improving the preparation, dissemination, and implementation of urolithiasis guidelines, particularly in adapting them to local clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.