CONTEXT: The previous European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urinary incontinence comprised a summary of sections of the 2009 International Consultation on Incontinence. A decision was made in 2010 to rewrite these guidelines based on an independent systematic review carried out by the EAU guidelines panel, using a sustainable methodology. OBJECTIVE: We present a short version of the full guidelines on assessment, diagnosis, and nonsurgical treatment of urinary incontinence, with the aim of increasing their dissemination. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Evidence appraisal included a pragmatic review of existing systematic reviews and independent new literature searches, based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions. Appraisal of papers was carried out by an international panel of experts, who also collaborated on a series of consensus discussions, to develop concise structured evidence summaries and action-based recommendations using a modified Oxford system. EVIDENCE SUMMARY: The full version of the guidelines is available online (http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/). The guidelines include algorithms that refer the reader back to the supporting evidence, and they are more immediately useable in daily clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: These new guidelines present an up-to-date summary of the available evidence, together with clear clinical algorithms and action-based recommendations based on the best available evidence. Where such evidence does not exist, they present a consensus of expert opinion.
CONTEXT: The previous European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urinary incontinence comprised a summary of sections of the 2009 International Consultation on Incontinence. A decision was made in 2010 to rewrite these guidelines based on an independent systematic review carried out by the EAU guidelines panel, using a sustainable methodology. OBJECTIVE: We present a short version of the full guidelines on assessment, diagnosis, and nonsurgical treatment of urinary incontinence, with the aim of increasing their dissemination. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Evidence appraisal included a pragmatic review of existing systematic reviews and independent new literature searches, based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions. Appraisal of papers was carried out by an international panel of experts, who also collaborated on a series of consensus discussions, to develop concise structured evidence summaries and action-based recommendations using a modified Oxford system. EVIDENCE SUMMARY: The full version of the guidelines is available online (http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/). The guidelines include algorithms that refer the reader back to the supporting evidence, and they are more immediately useable in daily clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: These new guidelines present an up-to-date summary of the available evidence, together with clear clinical algorithms and action-based recommendations based on the best available evidence. Where such evidence does not exist, they present a consensus of expert opinion.
Authors: Alexander Kretschmer; Tanja Hüsch; Frauke Thomsen; Dominik Kronlachner; Tobias Pottek; Alice Obaje; Ralf Anding; Achim Rose; Roberto Olianas; Alexander Friedl; Wilhelm Hübner; Roland Homberg; Jesco Pfitzenmaier; Ulrich Grein; Fabian Queissert; Carsten M Naumann; Josef Schweiger; Carola Wotzka; Joanne N Nyarangi-Dix; Torben Hofmann; Alexander Buchner; Axel Haferkamp; Ricarda M Bauer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: K Becher; M Oelke; B Grass-Kapanke; J Flohr; E A Mueller; U Papenkordt; B Schulte-Frei; K-C Steinwachs; S Süss; M Wehling Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.281