An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Urologic Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

Andriana M. Peña; Chase C. Ladd; J Michael Anderson; Trevor Torgerson; Micah Hartwell; Brad Johnson; Megan McMurray; Matt Vassar

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.12.019

An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Urologic Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

Andriana M. Peña, Chase C. Ladd, J Michael Anderson, Trevor Torgerson, Micah Hartwell, Brad Johnson, Megan McMurray, Matt Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning the American Urologic Association (AUA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

Methods: We searched the AUA for CPGs from 2015–2021. We extracted all SRs from the reference sections and two independent investigators evaluated eligible SR/meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) instruments. We compared SRs conducted by the Cochrane group to non-Cochrane SRs using a Mann-Whitney test. A multivariate regression was used to compare study characteristics.

Results: Eighteen CPG's met inclusion criteria. We extracted 120 unique SRs, which accounted for 5.1% (n = 120/2346) of all citations. Mean percent adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was 65.4% –d 55.2% respectively. SRs conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration scored higher on AMSTAR-2 compared to non-Cochrane (z = -4.41, P <.01) and a positive correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 scores (r = 0.56, P <.001) was determined.

Conclusion: Our study indicated the quality of SRs used to develop AUA CPGs across both PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was variable. Despite higher evaluations, Cochrane SRs accounted for less than 15% of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations. Given the importance placed on CPGs within clinical practice, we recommended a synergistic relationship between the AUA and the Cochrane Collaboration to increase the number of quality urologic SRs.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	42-49
Number of pages	8
Journal	Urology
Volume	161
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.12.019
State	Published - Mar 2022

Access to Document

10.1016/j.urology.2021.12.019

Cite this

@article{637a90fa45f8471b98d32ba572b736c2,

title = "An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Urologic Association Clinical Practice Guidelines",

abstract = "Objective: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning the American Urologic Association (AUA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: We searched the AUA for CPGs from 2015–2021. We extracted all SRs from the reference sections and two independent investigators evaluated eligible SR/meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) instruments. We compared SRs conducted by the Cochrane group to non-Cochrane SRs using a Mann-Whitney test. A multivariate regression was used to compare study characteristics. Results: Eighteen CPG's met inclusion criteria. We extracted 120 unique SRs, which accounted for 5.1% (n = 120/2346) of all citations. Mean percent adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was 65.4% –d 55.2% respectively. SRs conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration scored higher on AMSTAR-2 compared to non-Cochrane (z = -4.41, P <.01) and a positive correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 scores (r = 0.56, P <.001) was determined. Conclusion: Our study indicated the quality of SRs used to develop AUA CPGs across both PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was variable. Despite higher evaluations, Cochrane SRs accounted for less than 15% of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations. Given the importance placed on CPGs within clinical practice, we recommended a synergistic relationship between the AUA and the Cochrane Collaboration to increase the number of quality urologic SRs.",

author = "Pe{\~n}a, {Andriana M.} and Ladd, {Chase C.} and Anderson, {J Michael} and Trevor Torgerson and Micah Hartwell and Brad Johnson and Megan McMurray and Matt Vassar",

note = "Funding Information: Financial Disclosure: Dr. Hartwell reports receiving funding from the National Institute of Justice for work unrelated to the current subject. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences — all outside of the present work. All other authors have no conflicts to report. Funding Information: Financial Disclosure: Dr. Hartwell reports receiving funding from the National Institute of Justice for work unrelated to the current subject. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences ? all outside of the present work. All other authors have no conflicts to report. Funding Support: The authors declare that no funding. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2022",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2021.12.019",

language = "English",

volume = "161",

pages = "42--49",

journal = "Urology",

issn = "0090-4295",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Urologic Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

AU - Peña, Andriana M.

AU - Ladd, Chase C.

AU - Anderson, J Michael

AU - Torgerson, Trevor

AU - Hartwell, Micah

AU - Johnson, Brad

AU - McMurray, Megan

AU - Vassar, Matt

N1 - Funding Information: Financial Disclosure: Dr. Hartwell reports receiving funding from the National Institute of Justice for work unrelated to the current subject. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences — all outside of the present work. All other authors have no conflicts to report. Funding Information: Financial Disclosure: Dr. Hartwell reports receiving funding from the National Institute of Justice for work unrelated to the current subject. Dr. Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences ? all outside of the present work. All other authors have no conflicts to report. Funding Support: The authors declare that no funding. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2022/3

Y1 - 2022/3

N2 - Objective: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning the American Urologic Association (AUA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: We searched the AUA for CPGs from 2015–2021. We extracted all SRs from the reference sections and two independent investigators evaluated eligible SR/meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) instruments. We compared SRs conducted by the Cochrane group to non-Cochrane SRs using a Mann-Whitney test. A multivariate regression was used to compare study characteristics. Results: Eighteen CPG's met inclusion criteria. We extracted 120 unique SRs, which accounted for 5.1% (n = 120/2346) of all citations. Mean percent adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was 65.4% –d 55.2% respectively. SRs conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration scored higher on AMSTAR-2 compared to non-Cochrane (z = -4.41, P <.01) and a positive correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 scores (r = 0.56, P <.001) was determined. Conclusion: Our study indicated the quality of SRs used to develop AUA CPGs across both PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was variable. Despite higher evaluations, Cochrane SRs accounted for less than 15% of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations. Given the importance placed on CPGs within clinical practice, we recommended a synergistic relationship between the AUA and the Cochrane Collaboration to increase the number of quality urologic SRs.

AB - Objective: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning the American Urologic Association (AUA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: We searched the AUA for CPGs from 2015–2021. We extracted all SRs from the reference sections and two independent investigators evaluated eligible SR/meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) instruments. We compared SRs conducted by the Cochrane group to non-Cochrane SRs using a Mann-Whitney test. A multivariate regression was used to compare study characteristics. Results: Eighteen CPG's met inclusion criteria. We extracted 120 unique SRs, which accounted for 5.1% (n = 120/2346) of all citations. Mean percent adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was 65.4% –d 55.2% respectively. SRs conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration scored higher on AMSTAR-2 compared to non-Cochrane (z = -4.41, P <.01) and a positive correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 scores (r = 0.56, P <.001) was determined. Conclusion: Our study indicated the quality of SRs used to develop AUA CPGs across both PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was variable. Despite higher evaluations, Cochrane SRs accounted for less than 15% of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations. Given the importance placed on CPGs within clinical practice, we recommended a synergistic relationship between the AUA and the Cochrane Collaboration to increase the number of quality urologic SRs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123704992&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2021.12.019

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2021.12.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 34986408

AN - SCOPUS:85123704992

SN - 0090-4295

VL - 161

SP - 42

EP - 49

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

ER -

An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Urologic Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this