4.6 Article

EAU Guidelines on Surgical Treatment of Urinary Incontinence

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 62, 期 6, 页码 1118-1129

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.023

关键词

Mixed urinary incontinence; Stress urinary incontinence; Urge urinary incontinence; Botulinum toxin A; Sacral nerve stimulation; Bulking agents; Urinary incontinence; Practice-based; Surgical treatment; Colposuspension; Slings; Compression devices; Cystoplasty; EAU guidelines

资金

  1. GSK
  2. Ferring
  3. FSK
  4. Astellas
  5. Allergan
  6. AMS
  7. Bard
  8. Gynecare
  9. Medtronic
  10. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urinary incontinence published in March 2012 have been rewritten based on an independent systematic review carried out by the EAU guidelines panel using a sustainable methodology. Objective: We present a short version here of the full guidelines on the surgical treatment of patients with urinary incontinence, with the aim of dissemination to a wider audience. Evidence acquisition: Evidence appraisal included a pragmatic review of existing systematic reviews and independent new literature searches based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions. The appraisal of papers was carried out by an international panel of experts, who also collaborated in a series of consensus discussions, to develop concise structured evidence summaries and action-based recommendations using a modified Oxford system. Evidence summary: The full version of the guidance is available online (www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/). The guidance includes algorithms that refer the reader back to the supporting evidence and have greater accessibility in daily clinical practice. Two original meta-analyses were carried out specifically for these guidelines and are included in this report. Conclusions: These new guidelines present an up-to-date summary of the available evidence, together with clear clinical algorithms and action-based recommendations based on the best available evidence. Where high-level evidence is lacking, they present a consensus of expert panel opinion. (C) 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据