ReviewCentral European journal of urology2024
Understanding the role of surveys in modern urology: an insight into survey trends over the decades.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To provide a comprehensive review of survey trends in urology, aiming to provide insight into changes in publication in the new millennium. Surveys in healthcare allow for a better understanding of the knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns as well as gaps in healthcare systems. Material and methods: A comprehensive review of all "surveys in urology answered by urologists" was performed through the PubMed and Scopus databases, according to the SPICE framework. Included surveys were divided according to the subject: "Uro-oncology", "Urolithiasis", "Mental health" "Resident training", and "Miscellaneous". Publications were then divided into 2 main periods: Period-1 (2000-2011) and Period-2 (2012-2023). Results: A total of 361 surveys have been published since 2000, with a significant overall increasing trend in the recent decade (p <0.001). A significantly increasing focus is seen for publications on resident training (n = 86; +660%; p = 0.003), mental health (n = 31; +650%; p = 0.001), urolithiasis (n = 40; +371%; p = 0.002), and uro-oncology (n = 94; +230%, p ≤0.001). In subanalysis, the largest increase in publications was noted for surveys on radical prostatectomy (+175%, p = 0.024), surgical treatment of urolithiasis (+320%, p = 0.040), quality of resident education (+483%, p <0.001), and personal satisfaction with resident training (+500%, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Over the decades, surveys have served as an effective interactive tool for urologists to engage and investigate different aspects of practice and training across sub-specialties. In modern times, better evaluation tools integrated with AI will provide a bigger platform for urologists to use surveys as part of their armamentarium to address and evaluate not only clinical practices but also emotional challenges, training needs, and inequalities that hinder progress in urology.
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.