World Journal Of Urology Research Articles

MP25-02 POOR METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS PUBLISHED IN THE UROLOGICAL LITERATURE

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP25-02 POOR METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS PUBLISHED IN THE UROLOGICAL LITERATURE Maylynn Ding, Jared Johnson, Gustavo Ariel Alvez, and Philipp Dahm Maylynn DingMaylynn Ding More articles by this author , Jared JohnsonJared Johnson More articles by this author , Gustavo Ariel AlvezGustavo Ariel Alvez More articles by this author , and Philipp DahmPhilipp Dahm More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003253.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Large number of systematic reviews (SRs) are published each year. While often of poor methodological quality, they are placed at the top of the ‘hierarchy of evidence’ and frequently cited. We performed this study to provide a longitudinal analysis of the methodological quality of SRs published in major urology journals over a 6-year time-period (2016-2021). METHODS: We systematically searched and analyzed all SRs related to questions of therapy or prevention published in the five major urology journals (European Urology, Journal of Urology, BJU International, Urology and World Journal of Urology). Three independent reviewers working in pairs selected eligible studies and abstracted the data in duplicate. We used the updated Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) instrument to assess SR quality. We performed pre-planned statistical hypothesis testing by time-period and journal of publication in SPSS Version 27.0. RESULTS: After screening 740 references (latest search date: 3/25/2022) we included 258 SRs of which 144 (55.8%) were published from 2016-2018 and 114 (44.2%) from 2019-2021. The main contributors were European Urology (30.2%), World Journal of Urology (22.1%) and Urology (20.5%). The most frequent topic by far was oncology (45.3%), followed by voiding dysfunction (20.5%) and infection/inflammation (8.9%). Overall, 2.3%, 3.5%, 18.6% and 75.6% of SRs had high, moderate, low, or critically low confidence ratings, respectively. ‘Justification for excluding individual studies’ and ‘protocol registered before commencement of the review’ were the main critical AMSTAR-2 criteria not met by 89.1% and 53.5% of SRs, respectively. Comparing time-periods 2016-2018 to 2019-2021, the proportion of SRs with high/moderate ratings did not increase (4.9% versus 6.1%; p = 0.481). The proportion of high/moderate quality reviews was highest for BJU International (15.4%) followed by Journal of Urology (9.7%), World Journal of Urology (5.3%), Urology (1.9%) and European Urology (1.3%; p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: Most SRs published in the urological literature continue to have serious methodological limitations and cannot be relied upon. There is a critical need for raising greater awareness among SR authors, editors, and consumers of the urological literature about established standards for high-quality SRs in order to improve their future quality. Source of Funding: Departmental © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e342 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Maylynn Ding More articles by this author Jared Johnson More articles by this author Gustavo Ariel Alvez More articles by this author Philipp Dahm More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

MP59-04 HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE FOR VERY LARGE BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA (>200 ML): LONG TERM OUTCOME OF A LARGE SERIES.

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP59-04 HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE FOR VERY LARGE BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA (>200 ML): LONG TERM OUTCOME OF A LARGE SERIES. Matteo Tallè, Francesco Mengoni, Roberto Orciani, Donato Dente, and Angelo Cafarelli Matteo TallèMatteo Tallè More articles by this author , Francesco MengoniFrancesco Mengoni More articles by this author , Roberto OrcianiRoberto Orciani More articles by this author , Donato DenteDonato Dente More articles by this author , and Angelo CafarelliAngelo Cafarelli More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003312.04AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Patients presenting with very large prostates (>200 ml of total volume) are a challenge to both patients and surgeons. Nowadays, although the efficacy and the less invasiveness of HoLEP compared to open techniques has been proven, still high level evidences for the best treatment of large prostates are limited. Aim of the study is to evaluate the short and long term outcomes of patients with very large prostates (>200 cc) in the largest series available so far. METHODS: Clinical data were collected in a prospective maintained database, we performed 183 HoLEP procedures on prostates greater than 200 gr in 86 months. We reported patient preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative outcomes and complications. Surgical technique: we used a Gilling modified technique with a three-lobe enucleation with a high power 120 W Holmium laser (Lumenis Pulse). Morcellation is conducted with a 7 gr/min morcellator (Lumenis VersaCut) together with basket for removal of the small prostate chips, in order to reduce operating time. Patients results were collected in a proper database Patients with limited follow-up and with data unavailable were excluded. RESULTS: We collected retrospectivally data of consecutive male patients who underwent HoLEP from July 2015 to September 2022 (86 months). There were 183 patients with a mean preoperative gland size of 218.9 cc (200-366 cc). Mean operative (145 min) and enucleation time (83 min) .Enucleation efficiency was greater for glands ≥300 cc (4.5 cc/min). Mean length of stay was 2.2±days and catheter duration was 2.8±days. Mean haemoglobin loss was (3,6 gr/dl, SD 0,1 - 6 gr/dl). 7 cases required blood transfusion (3.8%). 52 patients (28.4%) had indwelling catheter before surgery for urinary retention; this population experienced higher incidence of post-operative UTI and fever (42% vs 13%; p=0.001) Mean variation of Qmax was+14 ml/s (p<0,05) and IPSS score -16 points (p<0.05) at long term follow-up, these results stayed stable for during time with a mean follow 24 months (range 2-86) 3 (7.1%) patient required retreatment of BPH at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP for giant prostate is a minimally invasive option with low morbidity and good post-operative outcomes. These data support the feasibility of HoLEP regardless the size of the prostate and suggest that HoLEP could become the “gold standard” approach for prostate >200 cc. Source of Funding: 1) World Journal of Urology © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e807 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Matteo Tallè More articles by this author Francesco Mengoni More articles by this author Roberto Orciani More articles by this author Donato Dente More articles by this author Angelo Cafarelli More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Lack of Gender Diversity Among Systematic Reviews Authors in the Urological Literature (1998-2021).

Gender equity is a key performance metric in research, including systematic reviews, and is increasingly noted in publications. We performed this study to assess gender parity in scientific authorship of systematic reviews published in the urological literature. We identified all published systematic reviews addressing questions of therapy/prevention in 5 major urological journals (The Journal of Urology®, European Urology, Urology, BJU International, and World Journal of Urology) from 1998 to 2021. We determined gender of first, second, corresponding, and any author as a binary variable (woman or man) using a predefined algorithm. We included 523 systematic reviews. The main journal contributors were European Urology (32.6%), BJU International (22.0%), and The Journal of Urology (19.5%). Slightly more than half (51.8%) of reviews included at least 1 woman coauthor, 37.5% did not, and in 10.7% it was unclear. First, second, and corresponding authors were women in 13.7%, 12.4%, and 4.7%, respectively, and the median number of women contributors was 1 (interquartile range 0-2). Women-first authorship for the time period 1998-2012 was 13.0% (P = .139), and senior authorship was 5.0% (P = .270). In 2013-2016 it was 11.0% and 4.1%, and in 2017-2021 it increased somewhat to 16.5% and 5.1% (P = .270), respectively. The number of women involved in systematic reviews is low and has not improved over time. Since scientific authorship is important for academic advancement, this finding may contribute to the underrepresentation of women in academic leadership positions. Efforts to improve gender diversity in urology should include more collaboration across genders.

Authorship Gender Composition in Urology Literature From 2015 Through 2020

ObjectiveTo describe the current landscape of first and last female authorship in urology journals relative to the journals’ impact factor. We hypothesized that women would have a smaller proportion of publications in journals with higher impact factors. MethodsEighteen urology journals were divided into groups based on impact factor accordingly: from 33.2 to 6.2 were classified as high (European Urology, Nature Reviews Urology, The Journal of Urology, BJU International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and The Journal of Sexual Medicine), from 5.8 to 5.0 as medium (Asian Journal of Andrology, European Urology Focus, Sexual Medicine Reviews, Bladder Cancer, Prostate and World Journal of Urology), and from 4.8 to 2.2 as low (Urologic Oncology, Journal of Endourology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urology, Journal of Pediatric Urology and Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery). A computer script was designed using Python to search PubMed and record first and last author of publications between 2015 and 2020. Gender was determined by Gender-Api (https://gender-api.com). Names with an accuracy of <90% were excluded. Type of peer-review and scope of each journal were also analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Matlab. ResultsA total of 37,413 first and 28,414 last authors were identified during the study period. Overall, women represented 21% (8,029/37,413) of first and 15% (4,232/28,414) of last authors. Women were significantly less published in high impact journals compared to both medium and low impact journals (P <.001 in all). Among all journals, articles with female first authors were more likely to have a female last author (OR: 2.72, CI: 2.5-2.9, P <.001). Subspecialty journals had more female last authors than general journals (P <.05), and female representation increased if reviews were double-blinded (P <.001). Over the last 6 years, there has been a significant increase in female senior authorship among all journals (P = .045). ConclusionThe proportion of female authorship was significantly lower in higher impact urology journals. While the underlying cause is likely multifactorial, this finding highlights a gender discrepancy that may impact women's ability to achieve career goals in academic medicine when compared to their male counterparts.

Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology.

Validity of systematic reviews may be affected by non-publication of statistically non-significant or unfavorable clinical trial results. One function of clinical trial registries is to make these non-published studies available and thereby reduce potential publication bias. We aim to assess the use of clinical trial registries in published systematic reviews in urology. We identified all systematic reviews published in the five highest-impact general urology journals that publish original research between January 1 and December 31, 2017. Full-text analysis was performed to determine if protocols included searching clinical trial registries meeting WHO Registry Network criteria. Of a total of 204 search results, 92 were included in the analysis as systematic reviews. The majority searched the MEDLINE (91, 98%), EMBASE (69, 75%), and Cochrane (49, 53%) databases. Based on published methods, only 16 (17%) systematic reviews searched any clinical trial registries: 14 (15%) ClinicalTrials.gov, 6 (6%) WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and 2 (2%) ISRCTN registry. Rates of searching clinical trial registries were low regardless of the journal: 8 of 34 (24%) in European Urology; 2 of 10 (20%) in BJU International; 3 of 17 (18%) in Urology; 2 of 18 (11%) in The Journal of Urology; and 1 of 13 (8%) in World Journal of Urology. The majority of recently published systematic reviews in urology do not routinely search clinical trial registries. Inclusion of these registries can help identify unpublished trial data, which may improve the quality of systematic reviews by reducing publication bias.

The landscape of urological retractions: the prevalence of reported research misconduct.

To evaluate the landscape of retractions of literature and to determine the prevalence of research misconduct in the field of urology. Three databases (PUBMED, Embase, Retraction Watch) were queried for all retracted studies on urological topics in both urological and non-urological journals from April 1999 to March 2018. Two reviewers screened the records and determined the final list of articles to be included in the analysis. A total of 138 articles met the inclusion criteria. Over 80% of retractions occurred after 2009. Retractions originated from 76 different journals (13 urological journals) and 28 countries. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism (28%), fake peer review (20%), error (20%), and falsification of data (13%). Misconduct accounted for two-thirds of the retractions (n = 93). A large watermark, indicating retraction of the article, was present in 75% of the manuscripts. Articles were cited a total of 4454 times, 38% of citations happened after retraction. The majority of retracted articles related to urological oncology (70%). The highest number of retractions for an individual author was five. Rates of retraction among popular urological journals since 2010 have increased but remain a small proportion of all publications: BJUI, 0.189%; World Journal of Urology, 0.132%; European Urology, 0.058%; Urology, 0.047%; and Journal of Urology, 0.024%. Retractions of urological literature, similarly to retractions of other biomedical literature, have been rising over the last decade. The majority of these retractions stem from research misconduct. Despite retractions, flawed articles continued to be cited.

Designing model for improving relationship of wives with men with erectile dysfunction

Designing model for improving relationship of wives with men with erectile dysfunction

Globalization in Urology: A Bibliographical Analysis of Cross-Continent Publication between 2002 and 2012

Introduction: Asian scientists have now increasingly begun to contribute to globalization; yet it is not clear whether publishing in the field of urology is paralleled by elevated cross-continental scientific publishing. Materials and Methods: An exemplary bibliometric analysis of urologic journals from 3 different continents was conducted between 2002 and 2012. Based on the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports, 2 urologic journals with similar impact factors (IFs) in 2013 were selected from Europe (‘British Journal of Urology International', ‘World Journal of Urology'), Asia (‘International Journal of Urology', ‘Asian Journal of Andrology') and North America (‘Urologic Oncology-Seminars and Original Investigations', ‘Urology'). The home continent of the journal, the workplace continental affiliation of the last author, article type (clinical, experimental or review) as well as the IF were documented. Results: Most authors published their manuscripts in journals from the same continent in which they worked. However, a significant increase in cross-continental publishing was apparent from 2002 to 2012. Asians publishing in North America increased from 17% in 2002 to 35% in 2012. Europeans also increased the number of articles they published in North American journals, while publications from North American authors were shifted towards both European and Asian journals. Experimental and clinical articles showed significant increases in cross-continental publishing, while review publishing showed no significant change. The average IF for authors from all 3 continents increased from 2002 to 2012 (p < 0.001). The largest increase in the IF was found for Asian authors (0.11 per year). Conclusions: Cross-continental publication significantly increased during the period from 2002 to 2012. The impact that the Asian authors have experienced was found to be gradually impacting the North American and European colleagues.

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

FRI-02 PROFESSIONAL CULTURES IN MEDICINE? INTERNATIONAL UROLOGICAL JOURNALS AND THE ROLE OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES IN SCHAPING CENTRES AND PERIPHERIES IN SCIENTIFIC UROLOGY

You have accessJournal of UrologyHistory of Urology I (Podium)1 Apr 2014FRI-02 PROFESSIONAL CULTURES IN MEDICINE? INTERNATIONAL UROLOGICAL JOURNALS AND THE ROLE OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES IN SCHAPING CENTRES AND PERIPHERIES IN SCIENTIFIC UROLOGY Thorsten Halling, Friedrich Moll, and Heiner Fangerau Thorsten HallingThorsten Halling More articles by this author , Friedrich MollFriedrich Moll More articles by this author , and Heiner FangerauHeiner Fangerau More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.1720AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Introduction and Objectives During the 18th and 19th centuries journals became the standard format of scientific communication in medicine. Since the last third of the 19th century several med. subdisciplines had begun to publish their own journals in their attempts to strive for professional differentiation. In urology there was such an early attempt to establish an international journal: “Folia Urologica” was founded in 1907, based on a huge editorial board, which reflected large parts of the relevant scientific world in this time. It included urologists like J Israel, J Albarran or HH Young. World War I ended this project. Whereas before the war journals publishing in German were the central organs of publication (such as Langenbeck's Archives of Clinical Surgery) now US-American and English journals began to dominate the field. Especially after the 2nd World War it became an indispensable prerequisite to publish in English-speaking journals to be recognized scientifically. Publication indices and bibliographies played a crucial role during this process. The paper will examine and reconstruct the consequences of this process for the international urological community. Methods A citation analysis of five international journals (Urologia Internationalis; International urology and nephrology; World Journal of Urology; European Urology; Urology (SIU)) will be combined with a social network analysis in order to test the shifting influence of urol. journals on the global scientific community of urologists and on the variable perception of centres and peripheries of urological research during the 20th century. Results Based on the measure of most cited articles the Journal of Urology became the unquestioned dominant journal in urological science at the end of the 20th century. However, other journals during the 20th century have also played an important role in urological communication. Sometimes it is difficult to assess their impact with classical methods of examining bibliographic databases, counting citations and calculating impact factors. In particular, there seems to be a regional bias in the most popular databases, favoring North American periodicals compared with European literature on urology Conclusions As a consequence the urol.community needs to be aware of the fact that the results of citation analyses and the impact factor only reflect a preselected part discourse. Further sources of assessing the validity of a urological paper still need to be included in the evaluation of urol. information as reflected in journals. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e621 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Thorsten Halling More articles by this author Friedrich Moll More articles by this author Heiner Fangerau More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: An ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations

ContextThe incidence of postoperative complications is still the most frequently used surrogate marker of quality in surgery, but no standard guidelines or criteria exist for reporting surgical complications in the area of urology. ObjectiveTo review the available reporting systems used for urologic surgical complications, to establish a possible change in attitude towards reporting of complications using standardised systems, to assess systematically the Clavien–Dindo system when used for the reporting of complications related to urologic surgical procedures, to identify shortcomings in reporting complications, and to propose recommendations for the development and implementation of future reporting systems that are focused on patient-centred outcomes. Evidence acquisitionStandardised systems for reporting and classification of surgical complications were identified through a systematic review of the literature. To establish a possible change in attitude towards reporting of complications related to urologic procedures, we performed a systematic literature search of all papers reporting complications after urologic surgery published in European Urology, Journal of Urology, Urology, BJU International, and World Journal of Urology in 1999–2000 and 2009–2010. Data identification for the systematic assessment of the Clavien–Dindo system currently used for the reporting of complications related to urologic surgical interventions involved a Medline/Embase search and the search engines of individual urologic journals and publishers using Clavien, urology, and complications as keywords. All selected papers were full-text retrieved and assessed; analysis was done based on structured forms. Evidence synthesisThe systematic review of the literature for standardised systems used for reporting and classification of surgical complications revealed five such systems. As far as the attitude of urologists towards reporting of complications, a shift could be seen in the number of studies using most of the Martin criteria, as well as in the number of studies using either standardised criteria or the Clavien–Dindo system. The latter system was not properly used in 72 papers (35.3%). ConclusionsUniformed reporting of complications after urologic procedures will aid all those involved in patient care and scientific publishing (authors, reviewers, and editors). It will also contribute to the improvement of the scientific quality of papers published in the field of urologic surgery. When reporting the outcomes of urologic procedures, the committee proposes a series of quality criteria.

Publication of Original Research in Urologic Journals – A Neglected Orphan?

The pathophysiologic mechanisms behind urologic disease are increasingly being elucidated. The object of this investigation was to evaluate the publication policies of urologic journals during a period of progressively better understanding and management of urologic disease. Based on the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports and the PubMed database, the number and percentage of original experimental, original clinical, review or commentarial articles published between 2002–2010 in six leading urologic journals were analyzed. “British Journal of Urology International”, “European Urology”, “Urologic Oncology-Seminars and Original Investigations” (“Urologic Oncology”), “Urology”, “The Journal of Urology”, and “World Journal of Urology” were chosen, because these journals publish articles in all four categories. The publication policies of the six journals were very heterogeneous during the time period from 2002 to 2010. The percentage of original experimental and original clinical articles, related to all categories, remained the same in “British Journal of Urology International”, “Urologic Oncology”, “Urology” and “The Journal of Urology”. The percentage of experimental reports in “World Journal of Urology” between 2002–2010 significantly increased from 10 to 20%. A distinct elevation in the percentage of commentarial articles accompanied by a reduction of clinical articles became evident in “European Urology” which significantly correlated with a large increase in the journal’s impact factor. No clearly superior policy could be identified with regard to a general increase in the impact factors from all the journals. The publication policy of urologic journals does not expressly reflect the increase in scientific knowledge, which has occurred over the period 2002–2010. One way of increasing the exposure of urologists to research and expand the interface between experimental and clinical research, would be to enlarge the percentage of experimental articles published. There is no indication that such policy would be detrimental to a journal’s impact factor.

Notificación y clasificación de complicaciones después de procedimientos quirúrgicos urológicos: una evaluación y recomendaciones del panel de guías clínicas de la EAU

ContextThe incidence of postoperative complications is still the most frequently used surrogate marker of quality in surgery, but no standard guidelines or criteria exist for reporting surgical complications in the area of urology. ObjectiveTo review the available reporting systems used for urologic surgical complications, to establish a possible change in attitude towards reporting of complications using standardised systems, to assess systematically the Clavien-Dindo system when used for the reporting of complications related to urologic surgical procedures, to identify shortcomings in reporting complications, and to propose recommendations for the development and implementation of future reporting systems that are focused on patient-centred outcomes. Evidence acquisitionStandardised systems for reporting and classification of surgical complications were identified through a systematic review of the literature. To establish a possible change in attitude towards reporting of complications related to urologic procedures, we performed a systematic literature search of all papers reporting complications after urologic surgery published in European Urology, Journal of Urology, Urology, BJU International, and World Journal of Urology in 1999–2000 and 2009–2010. Data identification for the systematic assessment of the Clavien-Dindo system currently used for the reporting of complications related to urologic surgical interventions involved a Medline/Embase search and the search engines of individual urologic journals and publishers using Clavien, urology, and complications as keywords. All selected papers were full-text retrieved and assessed; analysis was done based on structured forms. Evidence synthesisThe systematic review of the literature for standardised systems used for reporting and classification of surgical complications revealed five such systems. As far as the attitude of urologists towards reporting of complications, a shift could be seen in the number of studies using most of the Martin criteria, as well as in the number of studies using either standardised criteria or the Clavien-Dindo system. The latter system was not properly used in 72 papers (35.3%). ConclusionsUniformed reporting of complications after urologic procedures will aid all those involved in patient care and scientific publishing (authors, reviewers, and editors). It will also contribute to the improvement of the scientific quality of papers published in the field of urologic surgery. When reporting the outcomes of urologic procedures, the committee proposes a series of quality criteria.

Re: Preoperative Stenting Decreases Operative Time and Reoperative Rates of Ureteroscopy(From: Chu L, Sternberg KM, Averch TD. Preoperative stenting decreases operative time and reoperative rates of ureteroscopy. J Endourol 2011;25:751–754)

Journal of EndourologyVol. 26, No. 1 Letters to the EditorDean G. Assimos, M.D., Section EditorRe: Preoperative Stenting Decreases Operative Time and Reoperative Rates of Ureteroscopy(From: Chu L, Sternberg KM, Averch TD. Preoperative stenting decreases operative time and reoperative rates of ureteroscopy. J Endourol 2011;25:751–754)Mesrur Selcuk Silay, Orhan Tanriverdi, and Cengiz MirogluMesrur Selcuk SilaySearch for more papers by this author, Orhan TanriverdiSearch for more papers by this author, and Cengiz MirogluSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:4 Jan 2012https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0203AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View article"Re: Preoperative Stenting Decreases Operative Time and Reoperative Rates of Ureteroscopy(From: Chu L, Sternberg KM, Averch TD. Preoperative stenting decreases operative time and reoperative rates of ureteroscopy. J Endourol 2011;25:751–754)." , 26(1), pp. 75–76FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byDisposable devices for RIRS: Where do we stand in 2013? What do we need in the future?30 July 2014 | World Journal of Urology, Vol. 33, No. 2 Volume 26Issue 1Jan 2012 InformationCopyright 2012, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Mesrur Selcuk Silay, Orhan Tanriverdi, and Cengiz Miroglu.Re: Preoperative Stenting Decreases Operative Time and Reoperative Rates of Ureteroscopy(From: Chu L, Sternberg KM, Averch TD. Preoperative stenting decreases operative time and reoperative rates of ureteroscopy. J Endourol 2011;25:751–754).Journal of Endourology.Jan 2012.75-76.http://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0203Published in Volume: 26 Issue 1: January 4, 2012Online Ahead of Print:November 17, 2011PDF download

Outcomes research in urology

Defining outcomes research is not a simple task. Despite its growth over the past several decades, it has been surprising difficult to classify. As noted by some outcomes researchers, the term ‘‘outcomes research’’ is commonly used, but its meaning is less clear [1]. For many of us, outcomes research falls under the larger umbrella of health services research (HSR), primarily because many of the earliest efforts to study outcomes were closely associated with the development of health services research as a discipline. For others without an HSR background, it is more ubiquitous and may have connections to other lines of research such as clinical epidemiology, clinical trials, or more general areas of clinical research miscellany. Although almost all forms of clinical research include some outcome variable, the editors tend to define outcomes research primarily through the lens of HSR and clinical epidemiology, excluding more general clinical research and clinical trials. Formally defined outcomes research is a form of ‘‘health services research that focuses on identifying variations in medical procedures and associated health outcomes [2].’’ According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), outcomes research is the primary vehicle to move our understanding of the end results of heath care practices forward and improve the health care system [3]. This general premise is probably consistent with most applied definitions of outcomes research, even if colloquial, and implies a quality objective to improve care, and subsequently outcomes. The spread of outcomes research into the mainstream has also coincided with expansion of its taxonomy. ‘‘Outcomes’’ studies now cover a range of subtopics and distinct but related subareas of clinical research. Research involving population surveys, systematic reviews and meta-analysis, decision analysis, patterns, variation and quality of care studies, quality of life assessment, cost effectiveness comparisons, and the development of prognostic and predictive models all fall under a broad heading of ‘‘outcomes’’ research. Similarly, new avenues in clinical research—in particular comparative effectiveness research and community-based research—will undoubtedly intersect with outcomes research and further expand its application. For this topic in World Journal of Urology, 12 papers offer a glimpse of the broad but interconnected and often interdisciplinary landscape of outcomes research. While study topics and approaches vary, in whole, this collection of studies provides an instructive sample of the present state of outcomes research. The articles have been structured to illustrate different approaches commonly used in outcomes research, including patient-level studies that utilize patient-reported outcomes, as well as populationbased outcome studies. This issue also touches on other topics central to health services and policy research, including assessments of patient preferences and preference-sensitive decision-making, as well as valuation of end S. M. Gilbert (&) Department of Urology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, PO Box 100247, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA e-mail: Scott.Gilbert@urology.ufl.edu

A Platform for Global Endourological Research

A Platform for Global Endourological Research

A Single Percutaneous Access and Flexible Nephroscopy Is the Best Treatment for a Full Staghorn Calculus

Journal of EndourologyVol. 22, No. 9 Stone DiseaseA Single Percutaneous Access and Flexible Nephroscopy Is the Best Treatment for a Full Staghorn CalculusSteve K. Williams and Raymond J. LeveilleeSteve K. WilliamsSearch for more papers by this author and Raymond J. LeveilleeSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:23 Sep 2008https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.9795AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byConsultation on kidney stones, Copenhagen 2019: lithotripsy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy29 July 2020 | World Journal of Urology, Vol. 39, No. 6Intracorporeal Lithotripsy During PCNL29 February 2020Rigid and Flexible Nephroscopy30 December 2018A contemporary lower pole approach for complete staghorn calculi: outcomes and efficacy3 April 2018 | World Journal of Urology, Vol. 36, No. 9Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy alone versus in combination with intraoperative anterograde flexible nephroscopy for staghorn stones: A retrospective studyThe Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, Vol. 31, No. 11Combination of debulking single-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy followed by retrograde intrarenal surgery for staghorn stones in solitary kidneys18 December 2013 | Scandinavian Journal of Urology, Vol. 48, No. 3External Validation and Evaluation of Reliability and Validity of the S-ReSC Scoring System to Predict Stone-Free Status after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy8 January 2014 | PLoS ONE, Vol. 9, No. 1Construction of a three-dimensional model of renal stones: comprehensive planning for percutaneous nephrolithotomy and assistance in surgery8 December 2012 | World Journal of Urology, Vol. 31, No. 6Failure of Initial Renal Arterial Embolization for Severe Post-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Study of Risk FactorsJournal of Urology, Vol. 190, No. 6Instrumentation and Surgical Technique25 October 2013Difficult Situations in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for Solitary Kidney and Renal Failure17 September 2012Flexible Renal Nephroscopy: Overcoming the Difficulties17 September 2012Predictors of Immediate Postoperative Outcome of Single-tract Percutaneous NephrolithotomyUrology, Vol. 80, No. 1Rigid and Flexible Nephroscopy5 January 2012Special Problems with Staghorn Calculi5 January 2012Changing Composition of Staghorn CalculiJournal of Urology, Vol. 186, No. 6Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complex caliceal and staghorn stones in patients with solitary kidney22 October 2010 | Urological Research, Vol. 39, No. 3Percutaneous Renal Surgery: Use of Flexible Nephroscopy and Treatment of Infundibular Stenoses Rhonda M. Walsh, Christopher R. Kelly, and Mantu Gupta8 October 2009 | Journal of Endourology, Vol. 23, No. 10Multiperc Versus Single Perc with Flexible Instrumentation for Staghorn Calculi Arvind P. Ganpule, Shashikant Mishra, and Mahesh R. Desai8 October 2009 | Journal of Endourology, Vol. 23, No. 10 Volume 22Issue 9Sep 2008 InformationMary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Steve K. Williams and Raymond J. Leveillee.A Single Percutaneous Access and Flexible Nephroscopy Is the Best Treatment for a Full Staghorn Calculus.Journal of Endourology.Sep 2008.1835-1838.http://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.9795Published in Volume: 22 Issue 9: September 23, 2008PDF download

Abstracts of the Engineering and Urology Society, May 19, 2007, Anaheim, California

Journal of EndourologyVol. 22, No. 1 Letter to the EditorAbstracts of the Engineering and Urology Society, May 19, 2007, Anaheim, CaliforniaPublished Online:22 Jan 2008https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9935AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byEditorial CommentUrology, Vol. 99Current evidence on lasers in laparoscopy: partial nephrectomy3 July 2014 | World Journal of Urology, Vol. 33, No. 4Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy with Diode Laser: A Promising Technique Nikola Knezevic, Tomislav Kulis, Marjan Maric, Marija Topalovic Grkovic, Ivan Krhen, and Zeljko Kastelan10 February 2014 | Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, Vol. 32, No. 2Robotic radical anterior pelvic exenteration: The UCI experience13 December 2010 | Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies, Vol. 20, No. 4Alternative Laser Energy Sources: Clinical Implications2 December 2010 Volume 22Issue 1Jan 2008 InformationMary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Abstracts of the Engineering and Urology Society, May 19, 2007, Anaheim, California.Journal of Endourology.Jan 2008.159-212.http://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9935Published in Volume: 22 Issue 1: January 22, 2008PDF download

Hospice and Palliative Medicine Goes Mainstream

Journal of Palliative MedicineVol. 9, No. 6 News from the AAHPMHospice and Palliative Medicine Goes MainstreamRonald SchonwetterRonald SchonwetterSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:22 Dec 2006https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2006.9.1240AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited bySpirituality and end-of-life care in disadvantaged men dying of prostate cancer19 December 2010 | World Journal of Urology, Vol. 29, No. 1Changes in the Quantity and Level of Evidence of Palliative and Hospice Care Literature: The Last CenturyJournal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 26, No. 35 Volume 9Issue 6Dec 2006 InformationCopyright 2006, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Ronald Schonwetter.Hospice and Palliative Medicine Goes Mainstream.Journal of Palliative Medicine.Dec 2006.1240-1242.http://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2006.9.1240Published in Volume: 9 Issue 6: December 22, 2006PDF download

Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Correction of Pediatric Retrocaval Ureter

Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical TechniquesVol. 16, No. 4 Case ReportsRobotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Correction of Pediatric Retrocaval UreterMohan S. Gundeti, Patric G. Duffy, and Imran MushtaqMohan S. GundetiSearch for more papers by this author, Patric G. DuffySearch for more papers by this author, and Imran MushtaqSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:12 Sep 2006https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2006.16.422AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byUréter retrocavoEMC - Urología, Vol. 54, No. 3Proximal and Mid-Ureteral Reconstruction in the Pediatric Population6 November 2021Proximal Ureteral Reconstruction: Ureteroureterostomy, Buccal Mucosa Graft, Retrocaval Ureter6 November 2021Robotics in Pediatric Urology30 October 2022Robotic Ureteral ReconstructionUrologic Clinics of North America, Vol. 48, No. 1Laparoscopic retroperitoneal approach for retrocaval ureter in children11 June 2019 | World Journal of Urology, Vol. 38, No. 8Laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal repair of retrocaval ureter: A comparison of the surgical outcomes from two centres with a comprehensive literature reviewJournal of Minimal Access Surgery, Vol. 16, No. 2Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted repair of retrocaval ureter in children: a multi-institutional comparative study with open repair5 December 2018 | World Journal of Urology, Vol. 37, No. 9Diagnosis and laparoscopic management of retrocaval ureter: A review of the literature and our case seriesInternational Journal of Surgery Case Reports, Vol. 59Transperitoneal laparoscopic ureteroureterostomy with excision of the compressed ureter for retrocaval ureter and review of literatureInvestigative and Clinical Urology, Vol. 60, No. 2High retrocaval ureter: An unexpected intraoperative finding during robotic redo pyeloplastyUrology Case Reports, Vol. 20Role of Robotics in Children: A brave New World!European Urology Focus, Vol. 3, No. 2-3Robotic surgery in pediatric urologyAsian Journal of Urology, Vol. 4, No. 1Retroperitoneoscopic ureteroplasty for retrocaval ureter: report of nine cases and literature review6 May 2016 | Scandinavian Journal of Urology, Vol. 50, No. 4Current perspectives in robotic assisted pediatric surgeryApollo Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 3Bladder and Ureteral Imaging18 November 2013Robot-Assisted Surgery: Current Status Evaluation in Abdominal and Urological Pediatric Surgery Yann Chaussy, François Becmeur, Hubert Lardy, and Didier Aubert3 June 2013 | Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, Vol. 23, No. 6Early experience in robotic-assisted laparoscopic bilateral intravesical ureteral reimplantation for vesicoureteral reflux in children11 June 2011 | Journal of Robotic Surgery, Vol. 6, No. 3Robotic repair of retrocaval ureter: A case seriesAfrican Journal of Urology, Vol. 18, No. 3Robotic paediatric urology19 March 2012 | BJU International, Vol. 110, No. 1Ectopic Ureter, Ureterocele, and Ureteral AnomaliesComplex robotic reconstructive surgical procedures in children with urologic abnormalitiesCurrent Opinion in Urology, Vol. 21, No. 4Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Reconstruction of Retrocaval Ureter: Description and Video of Technique Timothy J. LeRoy, David D. Thiel, and Todd C. Igel12 May 2011 | Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, Vol. 21, No. 4Ureteral Defects and Retrocaval Ureter3 February 2012Robotic Surgery Complications and Safety3 February 2012Uretère rétrocaveEMC - Urologie, Vol. 4, No. 1Uréter retrocavoEMC - Urología, Vol. 43, No. 2Experience With Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Upper and Lower Benign and Malignant Ureteral PathologiesUrology, Vol. 76, No. 6Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureteroureterostomy for Retrocaval Ureter: Report of 10 Cases and Literature ReviewUrology, Vol. 76, No. 4Retrocaval ureter with stone in the retrocaval segment of the ureter30 April 2010 | Pediatric Surgery International, Vol. 26, No. 8Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteroureterostomy for proximal ureteral obstructions in childrenJournal of Pediatric Urology, Vol. 5, No. 6Laparoscopic Repair of Circumcaval Ureter: One-year Follow-up of Three Patients and Literature ReviewUrology, Vol. 74, No. 1Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery in Pediatric Urology: An Update1 June 2009 | Scandinavian Journal of Surgery, Vol. 98, No. 2Other Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Genitourinary Operations30 July 2009Pure robotic retrocaval ureter repairInternational braz j urol, Vol. 34, No. 6Robotic Surgical Technique for Pediatric Laryngotracheal ReconstructionOtolaryngologic Clinics of North America, Vol. 41, No. 5Origin of the Infrarenal Part of the Caudal Vena cava in the PigAnatomia, Histologia, Embryologia, Vol. 37, No. 5Current status of robotic surgery in pediatric urology31 July 2008 | Pediatric Surgery International, Vol. 24, No. 9Right Retrocaval Ureter and Left Nutcracker Syndrome: A Case ReportUrology, Vol. 71, No. 6Robotic Pediatric Urology11 August 2008 Volume 16Issue 4Aug 2006 InformationCopyright 2006, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Mohan S. Gundeti, Patric G. Duffy, and Imran Mushtaq.Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Correction of Pediatric Retrocaval Ureter.Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.Aug 2006.422-424.http://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2006.16.422Published in Volume: 16 Issue 4: September 12, 2006PDF download