ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2025
Assessing the methodologic heterogeneity of Canadian Urological Association guidelines Adoption of the GRADE approach (2018-2023).
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2025. 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.
- Assessing the methodologic quality of systematic reviews using generative large language models.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Povidone-iodine for transrectal prostate biopsy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- The arc of the guideline universe is long, but it bends toward GRADE.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Canadian Urological Association (CUA) has a longstanding tradition of developing evidence-based guidelines. We conducted this study to assess the heterogeneity of the CUA's guideline methodology for developing recommendations from 2018-2023.
methodsWe included guidelines from the CUA website from 2018-2023. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate abstracted all data points and categorized the reported methodologic approaches for formulating recommendations and rating the evidence. We performed descriptive statistics only.
resultsWe included 23 guideline documents with a total of 654 recommendations. The median number of recommendations per guideline was 25 (interquartile range 17, 35). Seven guidelines (187 recommendations) used a modified Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine approach for both the strength of recommendations and the levels of evidence, and eight guidelines (177 recommendations) reported the use of GRADE both for the strength of recommendations and the certainty of evidence. Of the remaining eight guidelines, four (154 recommendations) blended the GRADE approach for the strength of recommendations with modified Oxford levels of evidence, and the remaining four combined the American Urological Association's approach to recommendations with Oxford levels of evidence (n=1), GRADE certainty of evidence (n=2), or used GRADE but made no recommendations (n=1).
conclusionsCUA guidelines have been marked by considerable methodologic heterogeneity that may confuse end users. Continued advancement in the CUA's approach to guideline development will facilitate greater collaboration and resource sharing, thereby supporting the CUA's mission of promoting high-quality, evidence-based care.
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.