Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the functional urology guidelines

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urological Science Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.4103/uros.uros_82_22
K. Movalled, Morteza Zavvar, H. Zafardoust, H. Salehi-pourmehr, S. Arlandis, Amirhossein Ghavidel-Sardsahra, S. Hajebrahimi
{"title":"Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the functional urology guidelines","authors":"K. Movalled, Morteza Zavvar, H. Zafardoust, H. Salehi-pourmehr, S. Arlandis, Amirhossein Ghavidel-Sardsahra, S. Hajebrahimi","doi":"10.4103/uros.uros_82_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study aimed to review the functional urology guidelines, relate the level of evidence (LOE) of their recommendations and highlight the discrepancies between the LOE and grade of recommendation. Materials and Methods: The electronic search was conducted in May 2019 and updated in February 2021. Three researchers separately reviewed the extracted guidelines based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. We extracted recommendations from each guideline and ranked them into three Grades of A, B, and C; and their evidence into four levels of I to IV. Results: Among the published functional urology guidelines, 18 guidelines were published between 2014 and 2020. Overall, 592 recommendations were abstracted. Of these, 121 recommendations were related to evaluation or diagnosis, and the others (n = 471) on the disease management. These recommendations were in the field of urinary incontinence (UI) (n = 216), overactive bladder (OAB) (n = 172), lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) (n = 126), and neurogenic bladder (NGB) (n = 78). Subgroup analysis showed that most of the recommendations in relation to UI were Grade A (n = 111; 51.4%), and one-third were Grade C (n = 83; 38.4%). The remaining 22 recommendations were Grade B (10.2%). In OAB, most of the recommendations were Grade B (n = 67, 39.0%), 55 of them were Grade A (32.0%) and the rest were Grade C (n = 50, 29.1%). Among UI guidelines, 51 (45.9%) Grade A recommendations were supported by LOE I evidence, and 39 (47.0%) Grade C recommendations were supported by LOE IV evidence. Across OAB guidelines, 43 (78.2%) Grade A recommendations were supported by LOE I evidence, and 20 (40.0%) Grade C recommendations were supported by LOE IV evidence. Across LUTS guidelines, 34 (61.8%) Grade A recommendations were supported by LOE I evidence, and 14 (23.3%) Grade C recommendations were supported by LOE IV evidence. Among NGB guidelines, 21 Grade A recommendations were supported by LOE I evidence, and 9 Grade C recommendations were supported by LOE IV evidence. Conclusion: Most of the recommendations in the field of functional urology are not based on the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and high quality RCTs; which indicates that more attention is still needed in making decisions based on the certainty and grade of recommendations.","PeriodicalId":23449,"journal":{"name":"Urological Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"142 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/uros.uros_82_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to review the functional urology guidelines, relate the level of evidence (LOE) of their recommendations and highlight the discrepancies between the LOE and grade of recommendation. Materials and Methods: The electronic search was conducted in May 2019 and updated in February 2021. Three researchers separately reviewed the extracted guidelines based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. We extracted recommendations from each guideline and ranked them into three Grades of A, B, and C; and their evidence into four levels of I to IV. Results: Among the published functional urology guidelines, 18 guidelines were published between 2014 and 2020. Overall, 592 recommendations were abstracted. Of these, 121 recommendations were related to evaluation or diagnosis, and the others (n = 471) on the disease management. These recommendations were in the field of urinary incontinence (UI) (n = 216), overactive bladder (OAB) (n = 172), lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) (n = 126), and neurogenic bladder (NGB) (n = 78). Subgroup analysis showed that most of the recommendations in relation to UI were Grade A (n = 111; 51.4%), and one-third were Grade C (n = 83; 38.4%). The remaining 22 recommendations were Grade B (10.2%). In OAB, most of the recommendations were Grade B (n = 67, 39.0%), 55 of them were Grade A (32.0%) and the rest were Grade C (n = 50, 29.1%). Among UI guidelines, 51 (45.9%) Grade A recommendations were supported by LOE I evidence, and 39 (47.0%) Grade C recommendations were supported by LOE IV evidence. Across OAB guidelines, 43 (78.2%) Grade A recommendations were supported by LOE I evidence, and 20 (40.0%) Grade C recommendations were supported by LOE IV evidence. Across LUTS guidelines, 34 (61.8%) Grade A recommendations were supported by LOE I evidence, and 14 (23.3%) Grade C recommendations were supported by LOE IV evidence. Among NGB guidelines, 21 Grade A recommendations were supported by LOE I evidence, and 9 Grade C recommendations were supported by LOE IV evidence. Conclusion: Most of the recommendations in the field of functional urology are not based on the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and high quality RCTs; which indicates that more attention is still needed in making decisions based on the certainty and grade of recommendations.
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
功能性泌尿外科指南推荐的科学证据水平
目的:本研究旨在回顾功能泌尿外科指南,将其推荐的证据水平(LOE)联系起来,并强调LOE与推荐等级之间的差异。材料和方法:电子检索于2019年5月进行,并于2021年2月更新。三位研究人员分别根据《研究与评价指南评价II》工具对提取的指南进行了审查。我们从每个指南中提取建议,并将其分为A、B和C三个等级;结果:在已发表的功能泌尿外科指南中,2014 - 2020年共发表了18份指南。总共有592条建议被摘要。其中121条建议与评估或诊断有关,其余(n = 471)则与疾病管理有关。这些建议包括尿失禁(UI) (n = 216)、膀胱过度活动(OAB) (n = 172)、下尿路症状(LUTS) (n = 126)和神经源性膀胱(NGB) (n = 78)。亚组分析显示,大多数与尿失禁有关的建议为A级(n = 111;51.4%),三分之一为C级(n = 83;38.4%)。其余22条建议为B级(10.2%)。OAB中,B级建议最多(n = 67, 39.0%), A级建议55例(32.0%),C级建议50例(29.1%)。在UI指南中,51项(45.9%)A级建议得到LOE I证据的支持,39项(47.0%)C级建议得到LOE IV证据的支持。在OAB指南中,有43条(78.2%)A级建议得到LOE I证据的支持,20条(40.0%)C级建议得到LOE IV证据的支持。在LUTS指南中,34条(61.8%)A级建议得到LOE I证据的支持,14条(23.3%)C级建议得到LOE IV证据的支持。在NGB指南中,有21条A级建议得到LOE I证据的支持,9条C级建议得到LOE IV证据的支持。结论:功能泌尿外科领域的推荐大多没有基于随机对照试验(rct)和高质量rct的系统评价和荟萃分析;这表明,在根据建议的确定性和等级作出决定时,仍然需要更多的注意。
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
Urological Science
Urological Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clinical guidelines of patient-centered bladder management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction due to chronic spinal cord injury – Part 3: Surgical treatment in chronic spinal cord injured patients Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: Clinicopathological profile and outcomes “Rule of Five” in Ureteral Dilatation and its Role in Ureteral Access Sheath Placement during Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Testicular tumor patients presented with scrotal violation-nonstandard surgical approach and its survival rate Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the functional urology guidelines
×
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:481959085
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