Use of Urology-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in International Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) serve as frameworks to unify diagnostic criteria and guide clinical decision-making. There is a paucity of literature surrounding the uptake of CPGs in urology practice settings with varied levels of resources worldwide. This study aims to evaluate reported use of CPGs within the context of international urology practice, identify local barriers to uptake, and evaluate the role of stakeholders in the CPG-development process. Methods This was an international, multi-center, cross-sectional study. An online survey collecting variables pertaining to the use of CPGs was distributed to attending/consultant urologists in Latin America, Africa, and China. Statistical analysis was conducted using R software. Result A total of 249 practicing urologists from 28 countries completed the survey. The majority of participants were males, aged 36 to 45, and practiced in a non-academic setting. Ninety-three percent of urologists used CPGs in their everyday clinical practice, and 43% believed CPGs were very important to medical decision-making. However, barriers such as the lack of adaptability or applicability of CPGs to local settings were mentioned by 29% and 24% of participants, respectively. Urologists believed scientific associations (81%), national urology boards (68%), and ministries of health (56%), were important stakeholders to consult to foster the development of local CPGs. Conclusions Globally, CPGs are widely used tools for clinical practice. However, there are concerns about the adaptability and applicability of CPGs to settings that may lack the resources to implement their recommendations. Efforts should be directed towards incorporating scientific and medical stakeholders into the review and adaptation of urology CPGs to suit the unique features of local health care systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.217 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".