Professional quality of life normative benchmarks.

OBJECTIVE: Those responsible for the care of trauma survivors can experience both beneficial and detrimental consequences resulting from their professional demands. Research has demonstrated that among professional caregivers, compassion satisfaction (CS), burnout (BO), and compassion fatigue (CF) are important factors contributing to professional quality of life. The current research aims to provide normative information regarding the factors contributing to professional quality of life among those who interact with survivors of trauma. The Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) Scale is a widely used measure of CS, BO, and CF. The most recent iteration of the ProQOL manual provides normative data to assist in the interpretation of scores. However, a review of the literature reporting raw scores on the ProQOL suggests that mean scores and cutoff scores for the 25th and 75th percentiles may be misleading. METHOD: A review of 30 studies (total sample size of 5,612) was conducted and normative values are presented. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) level of CS, CF, and BO were 37.7 (6.5), 16.7 (5.7), and 22.8 (5.4), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Values gathered from the literature review tend to align well with one another and suggest that within a given sample, CS scores tend to be higher than BO scores, and BO scores tend to be slightly higher than CF scores. (PsycINFO Database Record

Barriers and facilitators associated with colonoscopy completion in individuals with multiple chronic conditions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: A recommendation to undergo a colonoscopy, an invasive procedure that requires commitment and motivation, planning (scheduling and finding a driver) and preparation (diet restriction and laxative consumption), may be uniquely challenging for individuals with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). This qualitative study aimed to describe the barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy experienced by such patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semistructured focus groups were conducted with male Veterans who were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy and either failed to complete the procedure or completed the examination. Focus group recordings were transcribed and analyzed by an inductive grounded approach using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four individuals aged 51-83 years participated in this study (23 adherent and 21 nonadherent). Participants had an average of 7.4 chronic conditions (range 2-14). The five most common chronic conditions were hypertension (75%), hyperlipidemia (75%), osteoarthritis/degenerative joint disease (59%), atherosclerotic heart disease (48%), and diabetes mellitus (36%). We identified four unique themes that influenced motivation to undergo a colonoscopy: competing medical priorities, low perceived benefit, a prior negative colonoscopy experience, and pre-existing medical conditions. Additionally, we identified four themes that influenced individuals' ability to complete the examination: difficulty with bowel cleansing, difficulty with travel, worry about exacerbation of pre-existing conditions, and heightened concerns about potential complications. CONCLUSION: MCCs are common in individuals referred for colonoscopy and generate unique barriers to colonoscopy completion related to medication, dietary changes, transportation, preparation processes, symptoms exacerbation, and complication concerns. Future research should examine whether tailored interventions that include education and support in addressing the unique barriers can enhance colonoscopy completion.

Preventing PTSD and Depression and Reducing Health Care Costs in the Military: A Call for Building Resilience Among Service Members.

The present study investigates the role of psychological resilience in protecting against the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and comorbid PTSD and depression; and estimates the percent reductions in incidence of, and associated treatment cost savings for, each condition as a function of increasing resilience. A retrospective cohort of mental health care-seeking service members (n = 2,171) completed patient-reported outcome measures approximately every 10 weeks as part of the Psychological Health Pathways program. Patients with low resilience were at significantly greater odds for developing physical, behavioral, and mental health conditions, particularly sleep disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.81-3.73), perceived stress (AOR = 2.86, 95% CI = 1.05-7.75), and depression (AOR = 2.89, 95% CI = 2.34-3.57) compared to patients with moderate/high resilience. Increasing resilience across services by 20% is estimated to reduce the odds of developing PTSD, depression, and comorbid PTSD and depression by 73%, 54%, and 93%, respectively; the incidence by 32%, 19%, and 61%, respectively; and save approximately $196, $288, and $597 million in annual treatment costs, respectively, or approximately $1.1 billion total (a 35% reduction in costs). Using resilience as a preventive model may reduce health care utilization and costs in an already overtaxed health care system.

Outcomes from eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in active-duty service members with posttraumatic stress disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is one of the therapy interventions recommended by the Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guidelines. However, the literature concerning the effectiveness of this treatment modality in military service members is sparse. This study investigated the efficacy of EMDR in active-duty service members. METHOD: We conducted an effectiveness study with a record review from active-duty military mental health clinics where clinical outcomes had been monitored over a 10-week period using self-report measures of posttraumatic stress and disability. Symptom scores were examined over time in 331 service members who met presumptive criteria for the disorder on the PTSD Checklist-Military Version (PCL-M), who were in psychotherapy, and who received (n = 46) or didn't receive (n = 285) EMDR. RESULTS: Results indicated that patients receiving EMDR had significantly fewer therapy sessions over 10 weeks but had significantly greater gains in their PCL-M scores than did individuals not receiving EMDR. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized, controlled trials are still needed, but these findings provide further support for the use of EMDR in service members with PTSD. (PsycINFO Database Record

Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008.

PURPOSE: Well done systematic reviews provide the highest quality evidence for clinical questions of therapeutic effectiveness. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews in the urological literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically investigated all systematic reviews published in 4 major urological journals from 1998 to 2008. Studies were identified using a predefined search strategy in PubMed and confirmed by a hand search of journal tables of contents. A validated 11-point instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews was applied by 2 independent reviewers after a pilot testing phase. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 217 individual systematic reviews, of which 57 ultimately met study eligibility criteria. Ten (17.5%), 20 (35.1%) and 27 (47.4%) systematic reviews were published in 1998 to 2001, 2002 to 2005 and 2006 to 2008, respectively. Using the measurement tool to assess systematic reviews the mean +/- SD score was 4.8 +/- 2.0 points. Fewer than half of all systematic reviews performed a systematic literature search that included at least 2 databases (49.1%) or unpublished studies (31.6%), or provided a list of included and excluded studies (45.6%). Of the systematic reviews 63.2% assessed and documented the methodological quality of included studies. Systematic reviews with The Cochrane Collaboration authorship affiliation had a higher mean score than those with no such reported affiliation (6.5 +/- 1.2 vs 4.4 +/- 1.9 points, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that an increasing number of systematic reviews are published in the urological literature. However, many systematic reviews fail to meet established methodological standards, raising concerns about validity. Increased efforts are indicated to promote quality standards for performing systematic reviews among the authors and readership of the urological literature.

Reporting quality and information consistency of randomized, controlled trials presented as abstracts at the American Urological Association annual meetings.

PURPOSE: We assessed the quality of randomized, controlled trial reporting in abstracts from the annual meetings of the American Urological Association and determined whether the information provided is consistent with subsequent full text publications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form at the 2002 and 2003 American Urological Association annual meetings were identified for review. A systematic PubMed search based on authorship and key words from the study title was done to identify all subsequent full text publications. A standardized evaluation form was developed based on the published literature, pilot tested in a separate sample and applied by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 126 randomized, controlled trials were identified for review, including 56 in 2002 and 70 in 2003. Approximately a third of the trials (43 or 34.1%) identified the study design as a randomized, controlled trial in the abstract title. The method of randomization, allocation concealment and blinding was reported in 0% (0), 0% (0) and 40.5% (51) of studies, respectively. Mean/median followup was provided in 27.0% of studies (34). Of 126 randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form 62.7% (79) were subsequently published as full text articles. Study sample size and the number of randomized subjects differed in 24.1% and 28.9% of abstracts, respectively. From the small proportion of randomized, controlled trials (23 or 29.1%) that identified a single primary end point results differed in 9 of 23 (39.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Most abstracts fail to provide the necessary information to assess methodological quality. Organizers of urological meetings should consider implementing a more structured abstract format that requires authors to provide the necessary study details, thereby allowing urologists to critically appraise study validity.

Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials published in the urological literature.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based decision making seeks to balance potential benefits and harms (adverse effects) of health care interventions for an individual patient. We determined the prevalence and completeness of harm reporting in randomized controlled trials in the urological literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of all randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions published in The Journal of Urology, Urology, European Urology and BJU International in 1996 and 2004. Each article was reviewed by 2 independent investigators for 10 harm reporting criteria recommended by the CONSORT group. Discrepancies were settled by discussion and consensus. RESULTS: A total of 152 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, of which 109 (72%) reported adverse event outcomes. The median number of harm reporting criteria satisfied improved marginally from 1996 to 2004 (2.8 to 3.3, p = 0.36). A large proportion of studies failed to address harm in the abstract (55, 36%), introduction (71, 47%) and discussion (52, 34%). Few studies specified which adverse events were evaluated (21, 14%), when harm information was collected (32, 21%) or how the harm was attributed to the intervention (5, 3%). Only 48 (32%) articles provided reasons for patient withdrawal and 1 in 5 (33, 22%) reported the severity of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled trials published in the urological literature contain significant deficiencies in adverse event reporting. These findings suggest the need for reporting standards for harm in urological journals. Improvements in adverse event reporting would permit a more balanced assessment of interventions and would enhance evidence-based urological practice.

Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is displacing radical retropubic prostatectomy as the gold standard surgical approach for clinically localised prostate cancer in the United States and is also being increasingly used in Europe and other parts of the world. This trend has occurred despite the paucity of high-quality evidence to support its relative superiority to more established treatment modalities. OBJECTIVE: We performed this study to critically assess the quality of published evidence on RALP to support this major shift in practice patterns. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature through Medline and Embase (1966 to December 2008). All original research publications on RALP were included. Editorials, letters to the editor, and review articles were excluded. MEASUREMENTS: Two reviewers independently performed the data abstraction using a standardised form derived from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Seventy-five original research publications met eligibility criteria. Fifty-five (73.3%) studies were published between 2005 and 2008, and 20 studies (26.7%) were published between 2001 and 2004. Approximately three-quarters of the studies were case series (74.7%), and only two (2.7%) randomised, controlled trials (RCT) were identified. Twelve authors cowrote 72% (54 of 75) of the published studies. Reporting of STROBE criteria ranged from 100.0% (scientific rationale/background explained) to 1.3% (consideration of sample size), with no improvement over time. The study was limited to published literature in the English language. CONCLUSIONS: The published RALP literature is limited to observational studies of mostly low methodologic quality. Our findings draw into question to what extent valid conclusions about the relative superiority or equivalence of RALP to other surgical approaches can be drawn and whether published outcomes can be generalised to the broader community. There is an urgent need to raise the methodologic standards for clinical research on new urologic procedures and devices.

Levels of evidence ratings in the urological literature: an assessment of interobserver agreement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine to what extent urologists with no specific training agree upon level of evidence (LoE) ratings of studies published in the urological literature, as LoE are commonly referenced as a measure of evidence quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 86 clinical research studies published in four major urology journals were reviewed. Each article was independently reviewed by eight reviewers using a standardized data abstraction form. Articles were assessed for type of study (therapy, prognosis, diagnosis or economic) and LoE (I, II, III or IV). Reviewers received only written instructions and no formal training in the application of this classification system. RESULTS: Of the 86 articles, 69% related to therapy, 16% to prognosis, and 15% to diagnosis. Eight studies (9%) provided Level I evidence, 18 studies (21%) Level II, 14 studies (16%) Level III and 46 studies (54%) Level IV evidence. The intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval) based on all reviewers (eight reviewers) was 0.67 (0.59-0.74; P= 0.001) for the type of study and 0.55 (0.48-0.64; P= 0.001) for the LoE. In an analysis limited to a subset of studies in which all reviewers agreed upon the type of study question (n= 40) the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.79 (0.70-0.86; P= 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the present study there was a low interobserver agreement for LoE ratings by urologists with no specific training. These findings suggest caution in the interpretation of LoE ratings and emphasize the importance of specific training for individuals that are charged with quality of evidence determinations.

Direct-to-consumer advertising for urological pharmaceuticals: a cross-sectional analysis of print media.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs that are relevant to urological conditions. Evidence suggests that DTCA of prescription drugs increase pharmaceutical sales. Concern about such advertising methods has recently increased owing to the market withdrawal of heavily marketed drugs that were found to have serious health risks. METHODS: Three consecutive issues of 26 popular magazines during a 3-month period were screened for urology-related DTCA. Advertisements were abstracted using a standardized evaluation form that was pilot-tested in a separate sample of nonurological advertisements. Variables analyzed included the type of advertisement, claims of effectiveness, references of research studies, inducements, and use of tables, figures, and pictures. RESULTS: We identified 8 unique DTCA in 4 different magazines (Ladies Home Journal, Golf Digest, Sports Illustrated, and Good Housekeeping). All advertisements were disease-specific and targeted patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia-related symptoms (n = 3), incontinence (n = 3), or erectile dysfunction (n = 2). The median number of claims made per DTCA was 3 (range, 2-6). None of the claims made were supported by research data, as presented in tables or figures, or referenced peer-reviewed publications. The most common types of appeals addressed symptom control (8/8), lifestyle improvement (7/8), effectiveness (4/8), and dependability (3/8), while none addressed drug safety. CONCLUSIONS: DTCA of prescription drugs for urological conditions are found in select journals and focus on few highly prevalent conditions. None of the advertisement claims identified in this study were supported by research data. There seems to be significant room for improvement in the quality of information provided by urological advertisements.

Duplicate presentations on prostate cancer at American Urological Association and European Association of Urology annual meetings.

PURPOSE: We determined the rate of duplicate research presentations at recent American Urological Association and European Urological Association annual meetings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We cross-referenced all clinical research presentations related to prostate cancer presented at the 2006 American Urological Association and European Urological Association annual meetings with those presented at the corresponding annual meetings in 2005, 2006 and 2007 using a defined search strategy based on author names, abstract titles, study design and objectives. All data abstraction was performed in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers to ensure accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 282 and 312 abstracts on prostate cancer clinical research at the 2006 European Urological Association and American Urological Association annual meetings, respectively. The overall duplication rate of American Urological Association abstracts was 19.2% (60 of 312). Of duplicated abstracts 80.0% (48 of 60) were presented at the European Urological Association annual meeting the same year. Duplication of European Urological Association abstracts was identified in 20.9% (59 of 282). Authors who presented the same research (71 duplicate abstracts) at the 2 meetings altered the presentations in various ways, including a different study title in 40.8%, a different first and senior author in 14.1% and 18.3%, and increased or decreased sample size in 8.5% and 14.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately a fifth of clinical research abstracts on prostate cancer presented at the American Urological Association annual meeting were also presented at the European Urological Association meeting and vice versa. Inconsistencies between duplicate abstracts raise concerns about the integrity of the underlying studies. Stricter submission guidelines and improved dissemination of research findings from the 2 meetings may help limit this practice.

Evidence-based medicine training in residency: a survey of urology programme directors.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether and in what format urology residents receive formal training in evidence-based clinical practice. METHODS: In 2007 we conducted a survey of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited urology residency programmes in the USA. The survey instrument was sent to all programmes, using postal mailing, e-mail and a web-based interface. Programme director and coordinator names and basic demographic information such as programme size and length were retrieved from the institutions' websites and the ACGME database. RESULTS: Of 117 ACGME-accredited urology programmes, 108 responded (92.3%). Most respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with statements that formal evidence-based medicine (EBM) training was valuable to urology residents (97, 89.8%) and should be part of all residency programme curricula (91, 84.3%). Eighty-four programmes (77.8%) indicated that their curricula included formal educational activities related to EBM. These programmes provided a median (interquartile range) of 10 (4.8-25.0) h of EBM teaching per academic year. Most programmes (65.9%) provided fewer hours of EBM training than programme directors perceived as ideal. Asked what would make it easier to integrate EBM into the programme, respondents identified urology-specific educational materials (33.3%), a formal curriculum (24.4%) and faculty development (16.3%) as central needs. CONCLUSION: In this survey we found that most programme directors recognize formal EBM teaching as an important aspect of urology residency training. However, most programmes devote less time to EBM training than they would like, and urology-specific resources have been lacking. These findings support increased efforts to provide urology residents with opportunities to learn EBM-related knowledge and skills in a variety of educational formats.

Perceptions and competence in evidence-based medicine: a survey of the American Urological Association Membership.

PURPOSE: We investigated the attitudes and opinions of urologists toward evidence-based medicine to help guide future efforts of the American Urological Association and other organizations vested in the education and training of urologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August to November 2006 we performed a mail survey of a random sample of 2,000 members of the American Urological Association. Questions in the survey addressed the role of evidence-based medicine in urology, participants' self-assessed understanding of evidence-based medicine related terminology, their familiarity with and use of web based evidence-based medicine resources, as well as their evidence-based medicine competence based on their understanding of core concepts such as randomization and blinding. RESULTS: A total of 889 respondents completed the survey resulting in a response rate of 45%. There was widespread agreement that practicing evidence-based medicine improves patient care (median score 8; IQR 7, 10) and that every urologist should be familiar with critical appraisal techniques (median score 9; IQR 8, 10). The percentage of respondents who indicated that they "understand and could explain to others" the terms number needed to treat, power and level of evidence was 42%, 29% and 18%, respectively. The American Urological Association Guidelines were used regularly by 35% and on occasion by 51% of respondents. Of the participants 44% were unaware of the PubMed(R) search engine and only 14% used it regularly, while 76% were unaware of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and only 8% had ever used it. The mean evidence-based medicine competence score for all respondents was 67.2% +/- 17.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this survey confirm that urologists have a favorable attitude toward evidence-based medicine. However, understanding of evidence-based medicine terminology, concepts and use of related resources among American Urological Association members leaves room for improvement. Increased efforts to promote an understanding of evidence-based medicine through workshops, publications and web based resources specifically for a urological audience appear indicated.

Evaluating the evidence: the methodological and reporting quality of comparative observational studies of surgical interventions in urological publications.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and apply a standardized evaluation form for assessing the methodological and reporting quality of observational studies of surgical interventions in urology. METHODS: An evaluation standard was developed using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials statement and previously reported surgical reporting quality instruments. Consensus scoring among three reviewers was developed using two distinct sets of studies. All comparative observational trials involving therapeutic surgical procedures published in four major urological journals in 1995 and 2005 were randomly assigned to each reviewer. Categories of reporting adequacy included background, intervention, statistical analysis, results and discussion. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles in 1995 and 62 in 2005 met the inclusion criteria; 90% of studies were retrospective. From 1995 to 2005, the overall reporting quality score increased by 3.9 points (95% confidence interval, CI, 2.7-5.9; P = 0.001), from a mean (SD) of 19.1 (3.9) to 23.0 (4.2) on a scale of 0-42. There were significant improvements in the reporting categories of study background (+0.7 points, 95% CI 0.1-1.3, P = 0.043, 0-8-point scale), intervention (+1.6 points, 0.8-2.3, P = 0.001, 0-9-point scale), and statistical analysis (+0.8 points, 0.2-1.4, P = 0.006, 0-9-point scale). There were smaller and statistically insignificant improvements for results (+0.5 points, -0.3 to 1.2, P = 0.217, 0-10-point scale) and discussion reporting (+0.4 points, -0.1 to 0.8, P = 0.106, 0-6-point scale). CONCLUSIONS: There have been minor improvements in the reporting of observational studies of surgical intervention between 1995 and 2005. However, reporting quality remains suboptimal. Clinical investigators, reviewers and journal editors should continue to strive for transparent reporting of the observational studies representing the bulk of the clinical evidence for urological procedures.

Barriers to the practice of evidence-based urology.

PURPOSE: We investigated urologist perceptions of barriers to implementing evidence-based medicine in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In April 2005 an Internet survey was conducted to assess American Urological Association member attitudes toward evidence-based medicine. This analysis presents the responses to an open-ended question about perceived barriers to implementing evidence-based clinical practice in urology. Two raters developed a coding scheme with 5 main categories of evidence concerns, system level factors, physician factors, patient factors and other barriers. Each rater independently assigned a category to each response. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 365 participants (72%) responded to the open-ended question, each providing up to 4 codable responses. Of the group 53% cited concerns about the evidence including the lack thereof, low quality, limited applicability and biased presentation. In addition, 37% reported system level factors such as issues of reimbursement, fear of litigation, problems with implementation, interference/bias by third parties, and expectations and attitudes of other providers as important issues. Physician factors and patient factors were further cited by 28% and 9%, respectively. In terms of the legitimacy of evidence-based medicine 9% expressed skepticism whereas 5% of respondents indicated that they saw no barriers to implementing evidence-based medicine in urology. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to promote evidence-based medicine in urology should focus not only on the generation of high quality clinical research but also on its unbiased reporting and timely dissemination. Concerted efforts should be made to reduce system level factors that hinder the implementation of evidence-based care.

How to perform a literature search.

PURPOSE: Evidence based clinical practice seeks to integrate the current best evidence from clinical research with physician clinical expertise and patient individual preferences. We outline a stepwise approach to an effective and efficient search of electronic databases and introduce the reader to resources most relevant to the practicing urologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The need for additional research evidence is introduced in the context of a urological clinical scenario. This information need is translated into a focused clinical question using the PICOT (population, intervention, comparison, outcome and type of study) format. This PICOT format provides key words for a literature search of pre-appraised evidence and original research studies that address the clinical scenario. RESULTS: Available online resources can be broadly categorized into databases that focus on primary research studies, ie randomized, controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control or case series, such as MEDLINE and those that focus on secondary research that provides synthesis or synopsis of primary studies. Examples of such sources of pre-appraised evidence that are becoming increasingly relevant to urologists include BMJ Clinical Evidence, ACP Journal Club, The Cochrane Library and the National Guideline Clearinghouse. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to search the medical literature in a time efficient manner represents an important part of an evidence based practice that is relevant to all urologists. The use of electronic databases of pre-appraised evidence can greatly expedite the search for high quality evidence, which is then integrated with urologist clinical skills and patient individual circumstances.

Study characteristics of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the southeastern section of the American Urological Association (1996-2005).

PURPOSE: We determined study characteristics, authorship and institutional origin of studies presented in abstract form at the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings and identified predictors of full text publication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All abstracts of poster and podium presentations from the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings from 1996 to 2005 were reviewed. A standardized evaluation form was developed and tested in 2 subsets of 50 abstracts, and then applied by 2 individual reviewers with specific coding instructions. Predictor variables analyzed included study origin, design, topic, domain, presentation form, number of patients, reporting of statistical analysis and gender. Univariate and multivariate analysis was applied using SPSS version 14.0. RESULTS: A total of 1,195 abstracts were found eligible for review. The mean number of abstracts presented per year was 120 +/- 16 (range 107 to 146). In clinical studies (1,068) approximately three-quarters of the abstracts reported case series (801, 75.0%). Cohort studies accounted for 11.2% of the abstracts and 4.0% were randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Median followup was 64 months (range 17 to 126) and the overall publication rate was 33.5%. First and senior female authorship were identified in 6.2% (74) and 5.4% (64) of abstracts presented, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of studies presented at the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings continue to represent small case series that may not be well suited to guide clinical decision making. Only a third of studies are subsequently published in the peer reviewed literature. The percentage of abstracts with female authorship remains low suggesting that increased efforts to involve women in urological research are indicated.

Levels of evidence in the urological literature.

PURPOSE: The concept of levels of evidence is one of the guiding principles of evidence based clinical practice. It is based on the understanding that certain study designs are more likely to be affected by bias than others. We provide an assessment of the type and levels of evidence found in the urological literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three reviewers rated a random sample of 600 articles published in 4 major urology journals, including 300 each in 2000 and 2005. The level of evidence rating system was adapted from the Center of Evidence Based Medicine. Sample size was estimated to detect a relative increase in the proportion of studies that provided a high level of evidence (I and II combined) from 0.2 to 0.3 with 80% power. RESULTS: Of the 600 studies reviewed 60.3% addressed questions of therapy or prevention, 11.5% addressed etiology/harm, 11.3% addressed prognosis and 9.2% addressed diagnosis. The levels of evidence provided by these studies from I to IV were 5.3%, 10.3%, 9.8% and 74.5%, respectively. A high level of evidence was provided by 16.0% of studies in 2000 and by 15.3% in 2005 (p = 0.911). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a majority of studies in the urological literature provide low levels of evidence that may not be well suited to guide clinical decision making. We propose that editors of leading urology journals should promote awareness for this guiding principle of evidence based clinical practice by providing a level of evidence designation with each published study.

The role of early adopter bias for new technologies in robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: We determined the potential influence of an early adopter bias in patients undergoing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared baseline demographic, clinical and health related quality of life characteristics of patients undergoing 3 different surgical procedures for clinically localized prostate cancer following the introduction of robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy at our institution. Patients included in this analysis were participating in a prospective health related quality of life study using the SF-12(R) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 402 patients 159 (39%) underwent robot assisted laparoscopic, 144 (36%) underwent radical perineal and 99 (25%) underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. There were no statistically significant associations between procedure type and patient age (p = 0.267), race (p = 0.725), number of medical comorbidities (p = 0.490), income (p = 0.056) and level of education (p = 0.495). Mean prostate specific antigen was 5.9 +/- 3.3, 7.3 +/- 5.5 and 5.7 +/- 5.0 ng/ml for robot assisted laparoscopic, radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy, respectively (p = 0.030). The proportion of robot assisted laparoscopic, radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy patients with a final Gleason score of 4-6 was 55%, 45% and 39%, respectively (p = 0.037). The proportion of robot assisted laparoscopic, radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy patients with stage T2 disease was 91%, 68% and 80%, respectively (p = 0.001). Statistically significant associations of higher income and education with higher baseline health related quality of life scores were seen in the sexual and physical domains (each p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We failed to find evidence of an early adopter bias for patients undergoing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Nevertheless, observational studies comparing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy to radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomy should account carefully for patient baseline characteristics to allow meaningful comparisons of surgical outcomes.