Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41572051›Full record

ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026

Accuracy, readability, and understandability of EAU guidelines bot for testicular cancer.

Giacomo Gallo, Riccardo Lombardo, Vincenzo Pagliarulo, Manfredi Bruno Sequi, Ludovica Maria Coppola, Eleonora Rosato, Matteo Romagnoli, Sabrina De Cillis, Enrico Checcucci, Daniele Amparore and 18 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

Giacomo GalloDepartment of Urology, Vito Fazzi Hospital, Piazza Filippo Muratore 1, 73100, Lecce, Italy.
Riccardo LombardoDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy. rlombardo@me.com.
Vincenzo PagliaruloDepartment of Urology, Vito Fazzi Hospital, Piazza Filippo Muratore 1, 73100, Lecce, Italy.
Manfredi Bruno SequiDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Ludovica Maria CoppolaDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Eleonora RosatoDepartment of Urology, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Matteo RomagnoliDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Sabrina De CillisDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Enrico CheccucciDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Daniele AmparoreDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Mauro RagoneseDepartment of Urology, Gemelli University, Rome, Italy.
Nazzario FoschiDepartment of Urology, Gemelli University, Rome, Italy.
Valerio SantarelliDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Pietro SpataforaDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, Univesity of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Giorgia TemaDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Antonio NacchiaDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Antonio CicioneDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Antonio FrancoDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Antonio Luigi PastoreDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Yazan Al SalhiDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Bernardo RoccoDepartment of Urology, Gemelli University, Rome, Italy.
Mauro GacciDepartment of Urology, Gemelli University, Rome, Italy.
Cristian FioriDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Enrico Finazzi AgròDepartment of Urology, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro SciarraDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Andrea TubaroDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Cosimo De NunzioDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Next-Gen Research Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecently, the EAU guidelines presented the EAU guidelines bot to assist urologists in the reading of the guidelines; however, up to date, no external validation is available. The aim of our study is to assess the accuracy, completeness, and clarity of the guideline's bot in testicular cancer.

methodsA total of 36 questions based on the EAU testicular cancer guidelines recommendations were developed. Each question was systematically presented to the EAU guidelines bot and the responses were independently assessed by two expert urologists to assess the accuracy, completeness, and clarity. A 5-point Likert scale was used as a score, and in case of discrepancies, a third urologist was queried. Accuracy, completeness, and clarity were assessed per chapter and per grade of recommendation. All questions and answers were recorded in an Excel file.

resultsOverall, 36 questions were developed. In terms of accuracy, 36/36 (100%) were defined as excellent (score 5). In terms of completeness, 23/36 (64%) were defined as totally complete (score = 5), 8/36 (22%) presented a good completeness (score = 4), while 5/36 (14%) were fairly complete (score = 3). Finally, in terms of clarity, 31/36 (86%) were defined as totally clear (score = 5) and 5 /36 (14%) were defined as almost totally clear (score = 4). None of the answers was evaluated as non-accurate, non-complete, or non-clear.

conclusionsEAU guidelines bot represents an accurate tool for testicular cancer management.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicTesticular NeoplasmsComprehensionHumansMaleArtificial intelligenceEAU guidelinesLarge language modelsTesticular cancer

Identifiers

PMID41572051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.