Literature DB >> 26977207

Do urologists follow the golden rule? A global urolithiasis management study by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society.

Gregory Roberts1, Dedan Opondo2, Linda Nott3, Hassan Razvi3, Jean de la Rosette2, Darren Beiko1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of this study was to compare surgical management options for various urolithiasis scenarios that urologists would choose for themselves vs. the options they would recommend for their patients. The secondary objective was to identify the common recommended treatments for upper urinary tract stones of various sizes and locations.
METHODS: Two surveys were sent by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) to members of the Endourological Society. Standard demographic information was collected. The first survey asked the urologists to recommend treatment for urolithiasis in 10 different scenarios assuming that they were the patient with stone disease. The second survey, sent eight months later, asked urologists to recommend treatment for the same 10 scenarios for a theoretical patient. Only urologists who responded to the first and the second survey were included. Recommended treatment options were compared between the surveys. Agreement between the two scenarios was measured with Cohen's kappa. Surveys were conducted on the Internet using SurveyMonkey™. All statistical analyses were performed using R statistical program version 2.12.2.
RESULTS: The two surveys had response rates of 78% (160/205) and 84% (172/205), respectively with urologists from 38 countries. Median experience of respondents was seven years (range: 2-30). The majority of respondents, 117 (75%), were affiliated with academic hospitals. Recommended treatments for stone disease in different scenarios were not entirely consistent when the urologists considered themselves as the patients compared to the choice they might recommend for their patients. Cohen's kappa ranged from 0.292-0.534 for the different scenarios. Overall, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) were the most commonly chosen treatment options, with medical expulsive therapy (MET) and laparoscopy being the least recommended by urologists for themselves, as well as for their patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Although urologists were not entirely consistent in their recommendations for stone treatment, they generally followed the "golden rule" and treated their patients as they would want to be treated. The most commonly recommended treatments for upper urinary tract stones were SWL and URS.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 26977207      PMCID: PMC4771559          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.3282

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  6 in total

Review 1.  Contemporary management of ureteral stones.

Authors:  Markus J Bader; Brian Eisner; Francesco Porpiglia; Glen M Preminger; Hans-Goran Tiselius
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-01-14       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 2.  2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Glenn M Preminger; Hans-Göran Tiselius; Dean G Assimos; Peter Alken; Colin Buck; Michele Gallucci; Thomas Knoll; James E Lingeman; Stephen Y Nakada; Margaret Sue Pearle; Kemal Sarica; Christian Türk; J Stuart Wolf
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Diversity in urologists' personal preferences in the ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi in Norway.

Authors:  Oyvind Ulvik; Nils M Ulvik
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 1.612

Review 4.  The past, present and future of minimally invasive therapy in urology: a review and speculative outlook.

Authors:  Jens Rassweiler; Marie-Claire Rassweiler; Hannes Kenngott; Thomas Frede; Maurice-Stephan Michel; Peter Alken; Ralph Clayman
Journal:  Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol       Date:  2013-06-30       Impact factor: 2.442

5.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Comparison of laparoscopic and open ureterolithotomy in impacted and very large ureteral stones.

Authors:  Goksel Bayar; Orhan Tanriverdi; Mehmet Taskiran; Umut Sariogullari; Hüseyin Acinikli; Elshad Abdullayev; Kaya Horasanli; Cengiz Miroglu
Journal:  Urol J       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 1.510

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.