OBJECTIVES: Guidelines can be produced and written in numerous ways. The aim of the present article is to describe and evaluate the method currently used to produce the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The methodology is described in detail, compared to other urologic guidelines by members of the EAU Guidelines Office Board. MEASUREMENTS: The new methodology is evaluated by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The currently used methodology is adapted to the aims and objectives as established by the EAU for their guidelines; wide coverage (essentially all fields of urology) and useful to urologists all over Europe. The frequent updates are easily accessible in a printed and electronic format. The AGREE instrument supports these strong points, but also identifies potentially weak points, such as no patient involvement, no formal validation of the guidelines texts prior to publication, and lack of discussion of organisational barriers and cost implications. CONCLUSION: The currently used methodology for the production of EAU guidelines fulfils the association's main objectives related to their guidelines, but the texts will benefit from the inclusion of country-specific cost and organisational data. For the practising clinician, these guidelines will help to take science into clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: Guidelines can be produced and written in numerous ways. The aim of the present article is to describe and evaluate the method currently used to produce the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The methodology is described in detail, compared to other urologic guidelines by members of the EAU Guidelines Office Board. MEASUREMENTS: The new methodology is evaluated by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The currently used methodology is adapted to the aims and objectives as established by the EAU for their guidelines; wide coverage (essentially all fields of urology) and useful to urologists all over Europe. The frequent updates are easily accessible in a printed and electronic format. The AGREE instrument supports these strong points, but also identifies potentially weak points, such as no patient involvement, no formal validation of the guidelines texts prior to publication, and lack of discussion of organisational barriers and cost implications. CONCLUSION: The currently used methodology for the production of EAU guidelines fulfils the association's main objectives related to their guidelines, but the texts will benefit from the inclusion of country-specific cost and organisational data. For the practising clinician, these guidelines will help to take science into clinical practice.
Authors: Francesco Del Giudice; Alex M Kasman; Matteo Ferro; Alessandro Sciarra; Ettore De Berardinis; Federico Belladelli; Andrea Salonia; Michael L Eisenberg Journal: Investig Clin Urol Date: 2020-06-08
Authors: Francesco Del Giudice; Gian Maria Busetto; Ettore De Berardinis; Isabella Sperduti; Matteo Ferro; Martina Maggi; Martin S Gross; Alessandro Sciarra; Michael L Eisenberg Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2020 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.285