EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence

Lucas, Malcolm G.; Bosch, Ruud J. L.; Burkhard, Fiona C; Cruz, Francisco; Madden, Thomas B.; Nambiar, Arjun K.; Neisius, Andreas; de Ridder, Dirk J. M. K.; Tubaro, Andrea; Turner, William H.; Pickard, Robert S. (2012). EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. European urology, 62(6), pp. 1118-1129. Amsterdam: Elsevier 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.023

[img] Text
1-s2.0-S0302283812010913-main.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

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.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Further Contribution)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Dermatology, Urology, Rheumatology, Nephrology, Osteoporosis (DURN) > Clinic of Urology

UniBE Contributor:

Burkhard, Fiona Christine

ISSN:

0302-2838

Publisher:

Elsevier

Language:

English

Submitter:

Factscience Import

Date Deposited:

04 Oct 2013 14:38

Last Modified:

03 Jul 2023 13:07

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.023

PubMed ID:

23040204

Web of Science ID:

000310783500035

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/15446

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/15446 (FactScience: 222792)

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback