整个欧洲肾绞痛的当前管理及其对欧洲泌尿外科协会尿石症指南的遵守:来自欧洲泌尿外科技术部门,欧洲尿石症部门,年轻学术泌尿科研究小组的调查。

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Central European Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-05-05 DOI:10.5173/ceju.2022.0046
Selçuk Güven, Mehmet Giray Sönmez, Bhaskar Kumar Somani, Ali Serdar Gözen, Kemal Sarica, Juan Gómez Rivas, Udo Nagele, Theodoros Tokas
{"title":"整个欧洲肾绞痛的当前管理及其对欧洲泌尿外科协会尿石症指南的遵守:来自欧洲泌尿外科技术部门,欧洲尿石症部门,年轻学术泌尿科研究小组的调查。","authors":"Selçuk Güven,&nbsp;Mehmet Giray Sönmez,&nbsp;Bhaskar Kumar Somani,&nbsp;Ali Serdar Gözen,&nbsp;Kemal Sarica,&nbsp;Juan Gómez Rivas,&nbsp;Udo Nagele,&nbsp;Theodoros Tokas","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2022.0046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Renal colic due to ureteral stones represents the primary acute condition in urology. Although guideline recommendations are available the institution, urologist, and patient preferences in diagnosis and treatment may differ. We aimed to evaluate the adherence of different European countries to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines of urolithiasis and demonstrate trends in diagnostic and treatment approaches.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We used a survey including 33 questions clustered in four sections. The survey was circulated to the representatives of the main urological centers in Europe using the European Section of Uro-technology (ESUT), the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS), the Young Academic Urologists (YAU), and the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) mailing lists. The first section included participant and institution demographics, the second assessed the common diagnostic and treatment pathways, the third discussed the advantages and disadvantages of treatment strategies and the fourth investigated treatment preferences in different clinical scenarios. A descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of all participants, 84.21% stated that their departments follow specific guidelines, with no significant differences between institutions (p = 0.18). Preferred treatment practice difference in the case scenarios was significantly influenced by the Department bed capacities (p = 0.01), and complications varied between institutions (p = 0.02). Interestingly, 37-45% of participants were unaware of the different treatment costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although urologists generally decide according to local or international guidelines when approaching renal colic patients, there are deviations in clinical practice due to 'doctor preference' and 'bed availability'. Many urologists are unaware of treatment costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/df/5a/CEJU-75-0046.PMC9326703.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.\",\"authors\":\"Selçuk Güven,&nbsp;Mehmet Giray Sönmez,&nbsp;Bhaskar Kumar Somani,&nbsp;Ali Serdar Gözen,&nbsp;Kemal Sarica,&nbsp;Juan Gómez Rivas,&nbsp;Udo Nagele,&nbsp;Theodoros Tokas\",\"doi\":\"10.5173/ceju.2022.0046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Renal colic due to ureteral stones represents the primary acute condition in urology. Although guideline recommendations are available the institution, urologist, and patient preferences in diagnosis and treatment may differ. We aimed to evaluate the adherence of different European countries to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines of urolithiasis and demonstrate trends in diagnostic and treatment approaches.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We used a survey including 33 questions clustered in four sections. The survey was circulated to the representatives of the main urological centers in Europe using the European Section of Uro-technology (ESUT), the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS), the Young Academic Urologists (YAU), and the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) mailing lists. The first section included participant and institution demographics, the second assessed the common diagnostic and treatment pathways, the third discussed the advantages and disadvantages of treatment strategies and the fourth investigated treatment preferences in different clinical scenarios. A descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of all participants, 84.21% stated that their departments follow specific guidelines, with no significant differences between institutions (p = 0.18). Preferred treatment practice difference in the case scenarios was significantly influenced by the Department bed capacities (p = 0.01), and complications varied between institutions (p = 0.02). Interestingly, 37-45% of participants were unaware of the different treatment costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although urologists generally decide according to local or international guidelines when approaching renal colic patients, there are deviations in clinical practice due to 'doctor preference' and 'bed availability'. Many urologists are unaware of treatment costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/df/5a/CEJU-75-0046.PMC9326703.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.0046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/5/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.0046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

导言:输尿管结石引起的肾绞痛是泌尿外科的主要急症。虽然有指南建议,但机构、泌尿科医生和患者在诊断和治疗方面的偏好可能不同。我们的目的是评估不同欧洲国家对欧洲泌尿外科协会(EAU)尿石症指南的依从性,并展示诊断和治疗方法的趋势。材料和方法:我们采用了一项调查,包括33个问题,分为四个部分。该调查通过欧洲泌尿技术科(ESUT)、欧洲尿石症科(EULIS)、青年学术泌尿科(YAU)和欧洲泌尿外科住院医师教育计划(EUREP)的邮件列表分发给欧洲主要泌尿科中心的代表。第一部分包括参与者和机构的人口统计数据,第二部分评估了常见的诊断和治疗途径,第三部分讨论了治疗策略的优缺点,第四部分调查了不同临床情况下的治疗偏好。进行描述性分析。结果:在所有参与者中,84.21%的人表示他们的部门遵循了特定的指导方针,而机构之间没有显著差异(p = 0.18)。科室床位数量对病例方案的首选治疗实践差异有显著影响(p = 0.01),不同机构的并发症差异也有显著影响(p = 0.02)。有趣的是,37-45%的参与者不知道不同的治疗费用。结论:尽管泌尿科医生在处理肾绞痛患者时通常根据当地或国际指南进行决定,但由于“医生偏好”和“床位可用性”,在临床实践中存在偏差。许多泌尿科医生不知道治疗费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.

Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.

Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.

Introduction: Renal colic due to ureteral stones represents the primary acute condition in urology. Although guideline recommendations are available the institution, urologist, and patient preferences in diagnosis and treatment may differ. We aimed to evaluate the adherence of different European countries to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines of urolithiasis and demonstrate trends in diagnostic and treatment approaches.

Material and methods: We used a survey including 33 questions clustered in four sections. The survey was circulated to the representatives of the main urological centers in Europe using the European Section of Uro-technology (ESUT), the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS), the Young Academic Urologists (YAU), and the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) mailing lists. The first section included participant and institution demographics, the second assessed the common diagnostic and treatment pathways, the third discussed the advantages and disadvantages of treatment strategies and the fourth investigated treatment preferences in different clinical scenarios. A descriptive analysis was performed.

Results: Of all participants, 84.21% stated that their departments follow specific guidelines, with no significant differences between institutions (p = 0.18). Preferred treatment practice difference in the case scenarios was significantly influenced by the Department bed capacities (p = 0.01), and complications varied between institutions (p = 0.02). Interestingly, 37-45% of participants were unaware of the different treatment costs.

Conclusions: Although urologists generally decide according to local or international guidelines when approaching renal colic patients, there are deviations in clinical practice due to 'doctor preference' and 'bed availability'. Many urologists are unaware of treatment costs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Central European Journal of Urology
Central European Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信