A critical review of recent clinical practice guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We provide an overview of the quality of recent clinical clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and summarize the recommendations for their diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. METHODS: We systematically searched recent (2008-2013) CPGs for non-neurogenic male LUTS. Eligible CPGs were assessed and appraised using Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool by a CPG-appraisal group. The appraisal scores for each guideline were summarized according to each domain and in total. A recommendation summary was made across the guidelines for diagnostics, conservative management, medical, minimally invasive therapy, and surgical management. RESULTS: A total of 8 guidelines were considered. According to AGREE II appraisal of guidelines, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) consistently scored high on the guideline domains assessed. Recommendations on diagnostics, conservative management, medical, and surgical management were consistent among the top 3 guidelines. However, we noted a discrepancy in recommending minimally invasive therapy as an alternative management of moderate to severe or bothersome non-neurogenic male LUTS secondary to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE); the NICE guideline, in particular, does not recommend using minimally invasive therapy. CONCLUSION: The quality of recent CPGs on non-neurogenic male LUTS was appraised and summarized. The guidelines from NICE, AUA and EAU were considered highly compliant to the AGREE II proposition for guideline formation and development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".