A Global Urolithiasis Management Survey by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES): Do Urologists Follow the 'Golden Rule'?
CUA Online Library. Roberts G. 06/24/13; 31256; MP-02.20
Disclosure(s): None
CLICK HERE TO LOGIN
REGULAR CONTENT
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Rate & Comment (0)
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Many clinical decisions—especially treatment decisions for urolithiasis—are based on a combination of evidence, experience, patient preference and physician experience. We do not know if there is dissonance between recommendations experts make to their patients and what experts would choose for themselves if they were the actual patient. We recorded endourologists’ attitudes and perceptions of treatment options for various clinical stone scenarios with no obvious management consensus, and determined if these recommendations were similar to how they would choose to be treated
themselves.
METHODS: In 2012, the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) sent an email invitation to all members of the Endourological Society to participate in this 2-part global survey study. All members who accepted the invitation were sent two identical surveys, six months apart, containing 10 clinical stone scenarios to which there is more than one reasonable management option. The initial survey asked the respondents to select the single best initial procedure they would recommend for a patient. The second survey was sent out 6 months later to eliminate recall bias, and asked the respondents to select the single best initial procedure they would choose for themselves if they were the actual patient. Descriptive statistics were performed on the responses from urologists who participated in both surveys. All statistical analysis was done using R-statistical programming
software version 2.12.2.
RESULTS: Initially, 205 members of the Endourological Society accepted the invitation to participate in the study. The response rate for the first survey was 83% (N=172/205). The response rate for the second survey was 81% (N=167). 157(76.6%) urologists responded to both Round 1 and Round 2. Academic urologists made up 117(74.5%) of respondents and 123(78.3%) completed a fellowship in endourology. There was a past medical history of urolithiasis in 27(17.5%) respondents. Absolute consensus was lacking between experts for each scenario, however there was no statistically significant differences between what
endourologists recommend for their patients and their personal choice of treatment; in fact, there was almost congruency.
CONCLUSIONS: This positive and encouraging global CROES study shows that the “Golden Rule”—Do unto others as you would have them do unto you—is being followed by members of the Endourological Society.
Source of Funding: none
themselves.
METHODS: In 2012, the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) sent an email invitation to all members of the Endourological Society to participate in this 2-part global survey study. All members who accepted the invitation were sent two identical surveys, six months apart, containing 10 clinical stone scenarios to which there is more than one reasonable management option. The initial survey asked the respondents to select the single best initial procedure they would recommend for a patient. The second survey was sent out 6 months later to eliminate recall bias, and asked the respondents to select the single best initial procedure they would choose for themselves if they were the actual patient. Descriptive statistics were performed on the responses from urologists who participated in both surveys. All statistical analysis was done using R-statistical programming
software version 2.12.2.
RESULTS: Initially, 205 members of the Endourological Society accepted the invitation to participate in the study. The response rate for the first survey was 83% (N=172/205). The response rate for the second survey was 81% (N=167). 157(76.6%) urologists responded to both Round 1 and Round 2. Academic urologists made up 117(74.5%) of respondents and 123(78.3%) completed a fellowship in endourology. There was a past medical history of urolithiasis in 27(17.5%) respondents. Absolute consensus was lacking between experts for each scenario, however there was no statistically significant differences between what
endourologists recommend for their patients and their personal choice of treatment; in fact, there was almost congruency.
CONCLUSIONS: This positive and encouraging global CROES study shows that the “Golden Rule”—Do unto others as you would have them do unto you—is being followed by members of the Endourological Society.
Source of Funding: none
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Many clinical decisions—especially treatment decisions for urolithiasis—are based on a combination of evidence, experience, patient preference and physician experience. We do not know if there is dissonance between recommendations experts make to their patients and what experts would choose for themselves if they were the actual patient. We recorded endourologists’ attitudes and perceptions of treatment options for various clinical stone scenarios with no obvious management consensus, and determined if these recommendations were similar to how they would choose to be treated
themselves.
METHODS: In 2012, the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) sent an email invitation to all members of the Endourological Society to participate in this 2-part global survey study. All members who accepted the invitation were sent two identical surveys, six months apart, containing 10 clinical stone scenarios to which there is more than one reasonable management option. The initial survey asked the respondents to select the single best initial procedure they would recommend for a patient. The second survey was sent out 6 months later to eliminate recall bias, and asked the respondents to select the single best initial procedure they would choose for themselves if they were the actual patient. Descriptive statistics were performed on the responses from urologists who participated in both surveys. All statistical analysis was done using R-statistical programming
software version 2.12.2.
RESULTS: Initially, 205 members of the Endourological Society accepted the invitation to participate in the study. The response rate for the first survey was 83% (N=172/205). The response rate for the second survey was 81% (N=167). 157(76.6%) urologists responded to both Round 1 and Round 2. Academic urologists made up 117(74.5%) of respondents and 123(78.3%) completed a fellowship in endourology. There was a past medical history of urolithiasis in 27(17.5%) respondents. Absolute consensus was lacking between experts for each scenario, however there was no statistically significant differences between what
endourologists recommend for their patients and their personal choice of treatment; in fact, there was almost congruency.
CONCLUSIONS: This positive and encouraging global CROES study shows that the “Golden Rule”—Do unto others as you would have them do unto you—is being followed by members of the Endourological Society.
Source of Funding: none
themselves.
METHODS: In 2012, the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) sent an email invitation to all members of the Endourological Society to participate in this 2-part global survey study. All members who accepted the invitation were sent two identical surveys, six months apart, containing 10 clinical stone scenarios to which there is more than one reasonable management option. The initial survey asked the respondents to select the single best initial procedure they would recommend for a patient. The second survey was sent out 6 months later to eliminate recall bias, and asked the respondents to select the single best initial procedure they would choose for themselves if they were the actual patient. Descriptive statistics were performed on the responses from urologists who participated in both surveys. All statistical analysis was done using R-statistical programming
software version 2.12.2.
RESULTS: Initially, 205 members of the Endourological Society accepted the invitation to participate in the study. The response rate for the first survey was 83% (N=172/205). The response rate for the second survey was 81% (N=167). 157(76.6%) urologists responded to both Round 1 and Round 2. Academic urologists made up 117(74.5%) of respondents and 123(78.3%) completed a fellowship in endourology. There was a past medical history of urolithiasis in 27(17.5%) respondents. Absolute consensus was lacking between experts for each scenario, however there was no statistically significant differences between what
endourologists recommend for their patients and their personal choice of treatment; in fact, there was almost congruency.
CONCLUSIONS: This positive and encouraging global CROES study shows that the “Golden Rule”—Do unto others as you would have them do unto you—is being followed by members of the Endourological Society.
Source of Funding: none
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}