Local clinical practice patterns in urolithiasis guidelines: a critical evaluation from Turkey.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY World Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1007/s00345-025-05490-y
Kemal Sarica, Rasim Güzel, Zeki Bayraktar, Salih Yildirim, Hikmet Yasar, Göksu Sarica, Cahit Sahın
{"title":"Local clinical practice patterns in urolithiasis guidelines: a critical evaluation from Turkey.","authors":"Kemal Sarica, Rasim Güzel, Zeki Bayraktar, Salih Yildirim, Hikmet Yasar, Göksu Sarica, Cahit Sahın","doi":"10.1007/s00345-025-05490-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"43 1","pages":"97"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11790800/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05490-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This 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.

Methods: The 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.

Results: Among 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.

Conclusion: The 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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
尿石症指南的当地临床实践模式:来自土耳其的关键评价。
目的:本研究旨在评估土耳其目前使用“尿石症指南”的临床实践模式,并确定影响泌尿科医生应用指南的关键因素。方法:该研究针对土耳其执业泌尿科医生,主要是那些参与尿石症管理的医生,评估他们对既定指南临床应用的观点和经验。共有415名泌尿科专家被邀请参加一项通过谷歌表格进行的基于调查的研究。参与是自愿的,65.08%的受邀泌尿科医师完成了调查。结果:在受访者中,84.7%的人在日常临床实践中使用了现有的指南,但参考频率不同。90.5%的受访者表示,使用指南的主要动机是预防潜在的并发症和避免法律风险。虽然56.9%的参与者坚持将指南作为临床标准化实践,但41.6%的参与者报告在个案基础上应用这些建议。值得注意的是,41.0%的受访者强调有必要对指南文本进行本地改编。此外,近一半的参与者报告没有接受过关于这些指导方针的意义、内容和实际应用的正规教育或培训。此外,12.7%的人对指南的循证基础表示怀疑,质疑这些建议是否来自严格进行的研究。结论:现有的尿石症指南为有效、安全的尿石症治疗提供了重要建议。然而,这项调查的结果强调了由于当地条件和执业泌尿科医生的个人经验和态度,临床实践模式的显著差异。指南建议的应用进一步受到对其发展、内容和实用性的看法的影响。从本研究中收集的见解可能有助于改进尿石症指南的准备、传播和实施,特别是使其适应当地临床环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.
期刊最新文献
Challenging recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstructions: endoscopic procedures versus redo-pyeloplasty-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Complications and symptom burden of ureteral double-J stents: a systematic review of prevalence, risk factors, and management strategies. Experience of 5 years adjustable continence therapy (ProACT): the surgical learning curve and patient outcomes. Hirschsprung disease and associated urological morbidities: institutional experience and systemic review. Ejaculation-preserving holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review of techniques, functional outcomes, and safety.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1