Lennert Eismann1, Alexander Kretschmer2, Markus J Bader3, Sabine Kess4, Christian G Stief2, Frank Strittmatter2. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Lennert.eismann@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. 3. UroClinic München, Residenzstrasse 18, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urolithiasis is a common diagnosis in urology. New technologies offer a variety of diagnostic and therapy and consequently display a financial burden on healthcare systems. Hence, clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are essential to implement evidence-based medicine and assure a standard of care considering limited resources. To date, there is no evidence of the use and adherence to CPG on urolithiasis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Therefore, we performed a cross-sectional study to analyze the use of CPG on urolithiasis. Data collection was carried out by a questionnaire given to 400 German urologists. The survey included use and adherence to guidelines, evaluation of the clinical situation, therapy spectrum, and workplace. In total, 150 (37%) questionnaires were received and included in our survey. Statistics were performed by SPSS using Chi-quadrat test/Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In our study, urologists were office based, hospital affiliated, non-academic, or academic centers in 53%, 32%, 16% and 5%, respectively. In 74% and 70%, urologists adhere to CPG in diagnostic and therapy. Interestingly, workplace and therapy spectrum determines the use of different CPG (p = 0.01; p = 0.022). Academic urologists were more likely to use international CPG of EAU (40%), while outpatient urologists significantly orientated on national CPG (46%). 86% of urologists with high volume of urolithiasis practice interventions in contrast to 53% in low volume (p = 0.001). More than 80% of urologists use short versions and app version of CPG. CONCLUSION: We firstly describe compliance and the use of CPG on urolithiasis. EAU and DGU present the most commonly used CPG. Short version and app version of CPG find frequent clinical utilization.
INTRODUCTION: Urolithiasis is a common diagnosis in urology. New technologies offer a variety of diagnostic and therapy and consequently display a financial burden on healthcare systems. Hence, clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are essential to implement evidence-based medicine and assure a standard of care considering limited resources. To date, there is no evidence of the use and adherence to CPG on urolithiasis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Therefore, we performed a cross-sectional study to analyze the use of CPG on urolithiasis. Data collection was carried out by a questionnaire given to 400 German urologists. The survey included use and adherence to guidelines, evaluation of the clinical situation, therapy spectrum, and workplace. In total, 150 (37%) questionnaires were received and included in our survey. Statistics were performed by SPSS using Chi-quadrat test/Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In our study, urologists were office based, hospital affiliated, non-academic, or academic centers in 53%, 32%, 16% and 5%, respectively. In 74% and 70%, urologists adhere to CPG in diagnostic and therapy. Interestingly, workplace and therapy spectrum determines the use of different CPG (p = 0.01; p = 0.022). Academic urologists were more likely to use international CPG of EAU (40%), while outpatient urologists significantly orientated on national CPG (46%). 86% of urologists with high volume of urolithiasis practice interventions in contrast to 53% in low volume (p = 0.001). More than 80% of urologists use short versions and app version of CPG. CONCLUSION: We firstly describe compliance and the use of CPG on urolithiasis. EAU and DGU present the most commonly used CPG. Short version and app version of CPG find frequent clinical utilization.
Authors: John M Hollingsworth; Zaojun Ye; Seth A Strope; Sarah L Krein; Ann T Hollenbeck; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Remco H A Ebben; Lilian C M Vloet; Michael H J Verhofstad; Sanne Meijer; Joke A J Mintjes-de Groot; Theo van Achterberg Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Joan Palou; Mark Soloway; Donald Lamm; Ashish M Kamat; Maurizio Brausi; Raj Persad; Roger Buckley; Marc Colombel; Andreas Böhle Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Selçuk Güven; Mehmet Giray Sönmez; Bhaskar Kumar Somani; Ali Serdar Gözen; Kemal Sarica; Juan Gómez Rivas; Udo Nagele; Theodoros Tokas Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2022-05-05