Evidence-based Urology: Trustworthy Guidelines

Review of Discordance Between American Urological Association and European Association of Urology Guideline Recommendations for Testicular Cancer

We compared the American Urological Association and the European Association of Urology guidelines on testicular cancer. We identified a few differences, in particular for management of low-volume metastatic serum tumor marker-negative stage IIA/B seminoma and nonseminoma, and of advanced and relapsing disease. Overall the rate of concordance between the guidelines is high. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared guidelines on testicular cancer published by the American Urological Association and the European Association of Urology. We found a high rate of agreement between the two guidelines, with some differences.

Evidence based Urology: The Gist Leading Us to the Evidence for Decisions

Making clinical decisions based on guideline recommendations that include relevant information and stakeholder perspectives requires a systematic approach that is transparent and clear. The evidence-to-decision framework helps clinicians, panel members, and policymakers to translate knowledge into patient care.

A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer

Context

Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes.

Objective

To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer.

Evidence acquisition

We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in localised RCC. In total, 2822 studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews) up to June 2020 meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers; in cases of disagreement, a third reviewer arbitrated. Data extractions were double-checked.

Evidence synthesis

We included 149 studies and found that there was inconsistency in which outcomes were reported across studies and variability in the definitions used for outcomes that were conceptually the same. We structured our analysis using the outcome classification taxonomy proposed by Dodd et al. Outcomes linked to adverse events (eg, bleeding, outcomes linked to surgery) and renal injury outcomes (reduced renal function) were reported most commonly. Outcomes related to deaths from any cause and from cancer were reported in 44% and 25% of studies, respectively, although the time point for measurement and the analysis methods were inconsistent. Outcomes linked to life impact (eg, global quality of life) were reported least often. Clinician-reported outcomes are more frequently reported than patient-reported outcomes in the renal cancer literature.

Conclusions

This systematic review underscores the heterogeneity of outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement in research on localised renal cancer. It catalogues the variety of outcomes and serves as a first step towards the development of a COS for localised renal cancer.

Patient summary

We reviewed studies on localised kidney cancer and found that multiple terms and definitions have been used to describe outcomes. These are not defined consistently, and often not defined at all. Our review is the first phase in developing a core outcome set to allow better comparisons of studies to improve medical care.

Hot Topics in the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms due to Benign Prostatic Obstruction

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners in patient decisions about appropriate health care. Appropriate methodologies and rigorous strategies are required to achieve high-quality CPGs. However, several challenges may occur during the development of guidelines. This article highlights current hot topics related to the development of guidelines for the management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) including benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Challenges include: (1) periodic updating of guidelines because of the rapid and continuous accumulation of new evidence and a range of emerging treatment options; (2) the requirements for inclusion of new interventions in guidelines; (3) inclusion of the values and preferences of patients with LUTS who have different needs and characteristics; and (4) a need to improve guideline implementation and adherence. Actions to overcome these challenges are also discussed. PATIENT SUMMARY: Guidelines are considered to improve the quality of clinical decisions by helping doctors and contributing to the consistency of care. The development and successful translation into clinical practice of guidelines on male lower urinary tract symptoms require management of several issues, including the identification and incorporation of patients' values and preferences.