Michael Erlano Chua1, Jonathan Mendoza2, Manuel See1, Ednalyn Esmena3, Dean Aguila4, Jan Michael Silangcruz1, Buenaventura Jose Reyes1, Saturnino Luna1, Marcelino Morales5. 1. Institute of Urology, St. Luke's Medical Center, Manila, Philippines; 2. Department of Preventive and Community Medicine, St. Luke's College of Medicine, Manila, Philippines; 3. Comprehensive Pelvic Floor Center, St. Luke's Medical Center, Manila, Philippines; 4. Clinical Information Management Service, St. Luke's Medical Center, Manila, Philippines; 5. Department of Urology, National Kidney and Transplant Institute, Manila, Philippines.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We provide an overview of the quality of recent clinical clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and summarize the recommendations for their diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. METHODS: We systematically searched recent (2008-2013) CPGs for non-neurogenic male LUTS. Eligible CPGs were assessed and appraised using Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool by a CPG-appraisal group. The appraisal scores for each guideline were summarized according to each domain and in total. A recommendation summary was made across the guidelines for diagnostics, conservative management, medical, minimally invasive therapy, and surgical management. RESULTS: A total of 8 guidelines were considered. According to AGREE II appraisal of guidelines, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) consistently scored high on the guideline domains assessed. Recommendations on diagnostics, conservative management, medical, and surgical management were consistent among the top 3 guidelines. However, we noted a discrepancy in recommending minimally invasive therapy as an alternative management of moderate to severe or bothersome non-neurogenic male LUTS secondary to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE); the NICE guideline, in particular, does not recommend using minimally invasive therapy. CONCLUSION: The quality of recent CPGs on non-neurogenic male LUTS was appraised and summarized. The guidelines from NICE, AUA and EAU were considered highly compliant to the AGREE II proposition for guideline formation and development.
INTRODUCTION: We provide an overview of the quality of recent clinical clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and summarize the recommendations for their diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. METHODS: We systematically searched recent (2008-2013) CPGs for non-neurogenic male LUTS. Eligible CPGs were assessed and appraised using Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool by a CPG-appraisal group. The appraisal scores for each guideline were summarized according to each domain and in total. A recommendation summary was made across the guidelines for diagnostics, conservative management, medical, minimally invasive therapy, and surgical management. RESULTS: A total of 8 guidelines were considered. According to AGREE II appraisal of guidelines, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) consistently scored high on the guideline domains assessed. Recommendations on diagnostics, conservative management, medical, and surgical management were consistent among the top 3 guidelines. However, we noted a discrepancy in recommending minimally invasive therapy as an alternative management of moderate to severe or bothersome non-neurogenic male LUTS secondary to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE); the NICE guideline, in particular, does not recommend using minimally invasive therapy. CONCLUSION: The quality of recent CPGs on non-neurogenic male LUTS was appraised and summarized. The guidelines from NICE, AUA and EAU were considered highly compliant to the AGREE II proposition for guideline formation and development.
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: J Curtis Nickel; Carlos E Méndez-Probst; Thomas F Whelan; Ryan F Paterson; Hassan Razvi Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Kevin T McVary; Claus G Roehrborn; Andrew L Avins; Michael J Barry; Reginald C Bruskewitz; Robert F Donnell; Harris E Foster; Chris M Gonzalez; Steven A Kaplan; David F Penson; James C Ulchaker; John T Wei Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nancy N Maserejian; Shan Chen; Gretchen R Chiu; Andre B Araujo; Varant Kupelian; Susan A Hall; John B McKinlay Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Varant Kupelian; John T Wei; Michael P O'Leary; John W Kusek; Heather J Litman; Carol L Link; John B McKinlay Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-11-27
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Michael Chua; Jessica Ming; Shang-Jen Chang; Joana Dos Santos; Niraj Mistry; Jan Michael Silangcruz; Mark Bayley; Martin A Koyle Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer; Ulrich Siering; Edmund A M Neugebauer; Anne Catharina Brockhaus; Ulrike Lampert; Michaela Eikermann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jessica Arieta-Miranda; Abad Salcedo Alcaychahua; Gary Pereda Santos; Manuel Chávez Sevillano; Rosa Lara Verástegui; Daniel Blanco Victorio; Gilmer Torres Ramos Journal: Heliyon Date: 2020-12-09
Authors: Scott R Bauer; Rebecca Scherzer; Shoujun Zhao; Benjamin N Breyer; Stacey A Kenfield; Michael Shlipak; Lynn M Marshall Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-06-28 Impact factor: 7.450