American Urological Association Annual Meeting Research Articles

Introduction and Validation of the American Urological Association Basic Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery Skills Curriculum

The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS(™)) skills curriculum has validity evidence supporting use for assessing laparoscopic skills for general surgeons. As charged by the American Urological Association (AUA) Laparoscopy, Robotic, and New Surgical Technology Committee, we sought to develop and validate a urology-specific FLS, referred to as the Basic Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery (BLUS(©)) skills curriculum. The psychomotor component consists of three existing FLS tasks and one new clip-applying task. An animate renal artery model was designed for a clip-applying skills task. We assessed the acceptability and construct validity of using BLUS for basic laparoscopic skills assessment for urologists. A cohort of practicing urologists, fellows, residents, and medical students completed the tasks at the AUA Annual Meetings in 2010 and 2011. All exercises were acceptable and demonstrated excellent face and content validity (>4.5/5 on a five-point Likert scale). Practicing clinical urologists (N=81) outperformed residents and medical students (N=35) in time to completion of circle cut (P<0.01) and in keeping scissor tips toward the center of the circle (P<0.01). Practicing urologists who reported >3 laparoscopic procedures per week were faster at the peg-transfer exercise (P<0.05) and the cutting exercise (P<0.01) than those reporting one to two procedures. More errors were committed for clip-applying among practicing urologists who perform one to two laparoscopic procedures (1.24) vs. those who perform >3 procedures (0.57) per week (P<0.01). All exercises including the novel clip-applying model demonstrated good acceptability and evidence of construct validity (face, content, concurrent and convergent validity) for assessment of basic laparoscopic skill for urologic surgeons.

Reporting Quality and Information Consistency of Randomized, Controlled Trials Presented as Abstracts at the American Urological Association Annual Meetings

We assessed the quality of randomized, controlled trial reporting in abstracts from the annual meetings of the American Urological Association and determined whether the information provided is consistent with subsequent full text publications. All randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form at the 2002 and 2003 American Urological Association annual meetings were identified for review. A systematic PubMed search based on authorship and key words from the study title was done to identify all subsequent full text publications. A standardized evaluation form was developed based on the published literature, pilot tested in a separate sample and applied by 2 independent reviewers. A total of 126 randomized, controlled trials were identified for review, including 56 in 2002 and 70 in 2003. Approximately a third of the trials (43 or 34.1%) identified the study design as a randomized, controlled trial in the abstract title. The method of randomization, allocation concealment and blinding was reported in 0% (0), 0% (0) and 40.5% (51) of studies, respectively. Mean/median followup was provided in 27.0% of studies (34). Of 126 randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form 62.7% (79) were subsequently published as full text articles. Study sample size and the number of randomized subjects differed in 24.1% and 28.9% of abstracts, respectively. From the small proportion of randomized, controlled trials (23 or 29.1%) that identified a single primary end point results differed in 9 of 23 (39.1%). Most abstracts fail to provide the necessary information to assess methodological quality. Organizers of urological meetings should consider implementing a more structured abstract format that requires authors to provide the necessary study details, thereby allowing urologists to critically appraise study validity.

Duplicate Presentations on Prostate Cancer at American Urological Association and European Association of Urology Annual Meetings

We determined the rate of duplicate research presentations at recent American Urological Association and European Urological Association annual meetings. We cross-referenced all clinical research presentations related to prostate cancer presented at the 2006 American Urological Association and European Urological Association annual meetings with those presented at the corresponding annual meetings in 2005, 2006 and 2007 using a defined search strategy based on author names, abstract titles, study design and objectives. All data abstraction was performed in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers to ensure accuracy. We identified 282 and 312 abstracts on prostate cancer clinical research at the 2006 European Urological Association and American Urological Association annual meetings, respectively. The overall duplication rate of American Urological Association abstracts was 19.2% (60 of 312). Of duplicated abstracts 80.0% (48 of 60) were presented at the European Urological Association annual meeting the same year. Duplication of European Urological Association abstracts was identified in 20.9% (59 of 282). Authors who presented the same research (71 duplicate abstracts) at the 2 meetings altered the presentations in various ways, including a different study title in 40.8%, a different first and senior author in 14.1% and 18.3%, and increased or decreased sample size in 8.5% and 14.1%, respectively. Approximately a fifth of clinical research abstracts on prostate cancer presented at the American Urological Association annual meeting were also presented at the European Urological Association meeting and vice versa. Inconsistencies between duplicate abstracts raise concerns about the integrity of the underlying studies. Stricter submission guidelines and improved dissemination of research findings from the 2 meetings may help limit this practice.

Study Characteristics of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association (1996–2005)

We determined study characteristics, authorship and institutional origin of studies presented in abstract form at the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings and identified predictors of full text publication. All abstracts of poster and podium presentations from the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings from 1996 to 2005 were reviewed. A standardized evaluation form was developed and tested in 2 subsets of 50 abstracts, and then applied by 2 individual reviewers with specific coding instructions. Predictor variables analyzed included study origin, design, topic, domain, presentation form, number of patients, reporting of statistical analysis and gender. Univariate and multivariate analysis was applied using SPSS version 14.0. A total of 1,195 abstracts were found eligible for review. The mean number of abstracts presented per year was 120 +/- 16 (range 107 to 146). In clinical studies (1,068) approximately three-quarters of the abstracts reported case series (801, 75.0%). Cohort studies accounted for 11.2% of the abstracts and 4.0% were randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Median followup was 64 months (range 17 to 126) and the overall publication rate was 33.5%. First and senior female authorship were identified in 6.2% (74) and 5.4% (64) of abstracts presented, respectively. A majority of studies presented at the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings continue to represent small case series that may not be well suited to guide clinical decision making. Only a third of studies are subsequently published in the peer reviewed literature. The percentage of abstracts with female authorship remains low suggesting that increased efforts to involve women in urological research are indicated.

Abstracts Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting: Determinants of Subsequent Peer Reviewed Publication

Abstracts submitted to medical meetings do not undergo the same critical peer review process as published manuscripts. Despite this limited scrutiny presented abstracts often influence clinical thinking and practice. Consequently the peer reviewed publication rate of abstracts becomes critical in judging the quality of this research. We determined this publication rate and factors influencing it. All 1,584 abstracts presented at the 2000 American Urological Association Annual Meeting were reviewed and assessed for subsequent publication with a fixed MEDLINE search protocol. We searched for publications from January 1, 1999 to May 31, 2005. Abstracts were deemed published if 1) at least 1 author of the presented abstract was a manuscript author and 2) at least 1 conclusion in the presented abstract was included in the final publication conclusions. Publication rates according to mode and topic of presentation, country or state of origin and time to publication were calculated. Journal impact factors for publications were compared according to these variables. Of presented abstracts from the 2000 American Urological Association meeting 55% went on to successful publication, including 59% of podium, 55% of poster, 55% of unmoderated poster and 42% of video presentations. Mean time from presentation to publication was 17 months. The average journal impact factor was 3.2. A significant proportion of presentations at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting is never subjected to or fails the critical peer review process. The overall journal impact factor for published manuscripts is modest. Meeting attendees should consider these observations when deciding whether to incorporate the findings of presentations into their clinical practice.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

To determine the rate and time-course of peer-reviewed publication of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the American Urological Association (AUA). All abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the AUA from 1998 to 2000 were searched in the PubMed database. To assess any significant predictors of ultimate peer-reviewed publication, abstract number, meeting year, presentation type (podium vs poster), type of research (basic vs clinical), date of publication and session name (i.e. prostate cancer: advanced) were entered into a database. The overall rate of publication was 37.8%. Survival analysis indicated that most abstracts were published within 2 years of their respective meetings. Univariate and multivariate techniques showed that none of the tested covariates were significant predictors of publication. Information presented at the AUA annual meetings should be carefully considered by physicians before implementation into their clinical practice. Researchers are encouraged to publish their data.