Tag Archive for: guideline of guidelines

Posts

Guideline of guidelines: Asymptomatic Microscopic Haematuria

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to review major organizational guidelines on the evaluation and management of asymptomatic microscopic haematuria (AMH). We reviewed the haematuria guidelines from: the American Urological Association; the consensus statement by the Canadian Urological Association, Canadian Urologic Oncology Group and Bladder Cancer Canada; the American College of Physicians; the Joint Consensus Statement of the Renal Association and British Association of Urological Surgeons; and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. All guidelines reviewed recommend evaluation for AMH in the absence of potential benign aetiologies, with the evaluation including cystoscopy and upper urinary tract imaging. Existing guidelines vary in their definition of AMH (role of urine dipstick vs urine microscopy), the age threshold for recommending evaluation, and the optimal imaging method (computed tomography vs ultrasonography). Of the reviewed guidelines, none recommended the use of urine cytology or urine markers during the initial AMH evaluation. Patients should have ongoing follow-up after a negative initial AMH evaluation. Significant variation exists among current guidelines for AMH with respect to who should be evaluated and in what manner. Given the patient and health system implications of balancing appropriately focused and effective diagnostic evaluation, AMH represents a valuable future research opportunity.

Guideline of guidelines: non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Abstract

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) represents the vast majority of bladder cancer diagnoses, but this definition represents a spectrum of disease with a variable clinical course, notable for significant risk of recurrence and potential for progression. Management involves risk-adapted strategies of cystoscopic surveillance and intravesical therapy with the goal of bladder preservation when safe to do so. Multiple organizational guidelines exist to help practitioners manage this complicated disease process, but adherence to management principles among practising urologists is reportedly low. We review four major organizational guidelines on NMIBC: the American Urological Association (AUA)/Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO), European Association of Urology (EAU), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

gog-nmibc

Access the full article

Guideline of guidelines: priapism

gog-priapism

Introduction

Priapism is defined as a prolonged penile erection lasting for >4 h in the absence of sexual stimulation and remains despite orgasm. Current guidelines for priapism have been published after a comprehensive literature review and expert consensus by the AUA and by an evidence review according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) by the European Association of Urology (EAU). Although there are both local and regional guidelines available throughout the UK, these tend to be adaptations of guidelines from larger urology organisations and there are currently no guidelines available from the BAUS. However, in the UK the management of complex cases is increasingly undertaken in specialist centres with the basic management following existing guidelines.

As priapism is a urological emergency, which requires immediate detumescence, the condition does not lend itself to randomised controlled trials and the EAU guidelines are based, at best, on Level 3 evidence.

gog-priapism-key-points

Access the full article

Article of the Month: Guideline of Guidelines – Thromboprophylaxis for Urological Surgery

Every Month the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Kari Tikkinen, discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery

Philippe D. Violette*, Rufus Cartwright†‡, Matthias Briel§, Kari A.O. Tikkinen¶ and Gordon H. Guyatt**,

 

*Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Woodstock Hospital, Woodstock, ON, Canada, † Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London, London, UK, Department of Urogynaecology, St. MaryHospital, London, UK, §Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland, Departments of Urology and Public Health, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, **Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, and ††Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

 

Read the full article

 

Decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis in urologic surgery involve a trade-off between decreased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and increased risk of bleeding. Both patient- and procedure-specific factors are critical in making an informed decision on the use of thromboprophylaxis. Our systematic review of the literature revealed that existing guidelines in urology are limited. Recommendations from national and international guidelines often conflict and are largely based on indirect as opposed to procedure-specific evidence. These issues have likely contributed to large variation in the use of VTE prophylaxis within and between countries. The majority of existing guidelines typically suggest prolonged thromboprophylaxis for high-risk abdominal or pelvic surgery, without clear clarification of what these procedures are, for up to 4 weeks post-discharge. Existing guidance may result in the under-treatment of procedures with low risk of bleeding and the over-treatment of oncological procedures with low risk of VTE. Guidance for patients who are already anticoagulated are not specific to urological procedures but generally involve evaluating patient and surgical risks when deciding on bridging therapy. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office has commissioned an ad hoc guideline panel that will present a formal thromboprophylaxis guideline for specific urological procedures and patient risk factors.

AOTM Key Points

Read more articles of the week

 

Video: Guideline of Guidelines – Thromboprophylaxis for Urological Surgery

Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery

Philippe D. Violette*, Rufus Cartwright†‡, Matthias Briel§, Kari A.O. Tikkinen¶ and Gordon H. Guyatt**,

 

*Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Woodstock Hospital, Woodstock, ON, Canada, † Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London, London, UK, Department of Urogynaecology, St. MaryHospital, London, UK, §Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland, Departments of Urology and Public Health, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, **Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, and ††Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Read the full article
Decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis in urologic surgery involve a trade-off between decreased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and increased risk of bleeding. Both patient- and procedure-specific factors are critical in making an informed decision on the use of thromboprophylaxis. Our systematic review of the literature revealed that existing guidelines in urology are limited. Recommendations from national and international guidelines often conflict and are largely based on indirect as opposed to procedure-specific evidence. These issues have likely contributed to large variation in the use of VTE prophylaxis within and between countries. The majority of existing guidelines typically suggest prolonged thromboprophylaxis for high-risk abdominal or pelvic surgery, without clear clarification of what these procedures are, for up to 4 weeks post-discharge. Existing guidance may result in the under-treatment of procedures with low risk of bleeding and the over-treatment of oncological procedures with low risk of VTE. Guidance for patients who are already anticoagulated are not specific to urological procedures but generally involve evaluating patient and surgical risks when deciding on bridging therapy. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office has commissioned an ad hoc guideline panel that will present a formal thromboprophylaxis guideline for specific urological procedures and patient risk factors.
Read more articles of the week

 

Guideline of guidelines: follow-up after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma

RCC folowup

 

Abstract

The purpose of this article was to review and compare the international guidelines and surveillance protocols for post-nephrectomy renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PubMed database searches were conducted, according to the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews, to identify current international surveillance guidelines and surveillance protocols for surgically treated and clinically localized RCC. A total of 17 articles were reviewed. These included three articles on urological guidelines, three on oncological guidelines and 11 on proposed strategies. Guidelines and strategies varied significantly in relation to follow-up, specifically with regard to the frequency and timing of radiological imaging. Although there is currently no consensus within the literature regarding surveillance protocols, various guidelines and strategies have been developed using both patient and tumour characteristics.

 

Access the full article

Urological recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline, June 2015: Suspected cancer: recognition and referral

suspected cancer

 

suspected cancer table

 

 

 

 

 

 

Access the full article

Guideline of guidelines: a review of urological trauma guidelines

urological trauma

 

Objective

To review the guidelines released in the last decade by several organisations for the optimal evaluation and management of genitourinary injuries (renal, ureteric, bladder, urethral and genital).

Methods

This is a review of the genitourinary trauma guidelines from the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA), and renal trauma guidelines from the Société Internationale d’Urologie (SIU).

Results

Most recommendations are guided by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) organ injury severity system. Grade A evidence is rare in genitourinary trauma, and most recommendations are based on Grade B or C evidence. The findings of the most recent urological trauma guidelines are summarised. All guidelines recommend conservative management for low-grade injuries. The major difference is for haemodynamically stable patients who have high-grade renal trauma; the SIU guidelines recommend exploratory laparotomy, the EAU guidelines recommend renal exploration only if the injury is vascular, and the AUA guidelines recommend initial conservative management.

Conclusion

There is generally consensus among the three guidelines. Recommendations are based on observational or retrospective studies, as well as clinical principles and expert opinions. Multi-institutional collaborative research can improve the quality of evidence and direct more effective evaluation and management of urological trauma.

 

 

Access the full article

Guideline of guidelines: urinary incontinence

Urinary Incontinence Guideliens

 

Abstract

The objective of the article is to review key guidelines on the management of urinary incontinence (UI) to guide clinical management in a practical way. Guidelines produced by the European Association of Urology (updated in 2014), the Canadian Urological Association (updated in 2012), the International Consultation on Incontinence (updated in 2012), and the National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (updated in 2013) were examined and their recommendations compared. In addition, specialised guidelines produced by the collaboration between the American Urological Association and the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction on overactive bladder and the use of urodynamics were reviewed. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE) instrument was used to evaluate the quality of these guidelines. There is general agreement between the groups on the recommended initial evaluation and the use of conservative therapies for first-line treatment, with a limited role for imaging or invasive testing in the uncomplicated patient. These groups have greater variability in their recommendations for invasive procedures; however, generally the mid-urethral sling is recommended for uncomplicated stress UI, with different recommendations on the approach, as well as the comparability to other treatments, such as the autologous fascial sling. This ‘Guideline of Guidelines’ provides a summary of the salient similarities and differences between prominent groups on the management of UI.

Urinary Incontinence key points

Access the full article

Guideline of Guidelines: Imaging of Localized Prostate Cancer

Guidelines Localised Prostate Cacner

 

Introduction

In the era before the widespread adoption of PSA screening for prostate cancer, most incident cases were already advanced stage. Because treatment options, such as surgery or radiation, are thought mainly to benefit patients with localised disease, prostate cancer imaging was necessary before treatment of almost all patients. However, in the PSA era >90% of incident cases are localised, making the need for routine imaging with CT, MRI, or bone scan obsolete [1]. Numerous studies show a relatively low rate of positive staging imaging in low- and intermediate-risk patients. Recognising these trends, several professional societies issued prostate cancer imaging guidelines in the mid-1990s in an effort to curb the overuse of imaging. However, despite these longstanding guidelines, a great number of patients undergo improper imaging [2]. Given how stubborn this problem has been to eradicate, there has been a renewed interest in finding ways to decrease unnecessary imaging, including a Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) quality measure and a highlighting of the problem in the ‘Choosing Wisely’ campaign [3-5]. In addition to the guidelines regarding the staging of incident prostate cancer, some groups have also presented guidelines on the use of imaging to follow men with advanced disease [6]. The purpose of the present article is to summarise the main points from multiple professional society guidelines on imaging in prostate cancer to help clarify when patients with prostate cancer should be imaged and with which modalities.

Prostate Cancer Key Points

Access the full article
© 2022 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.