Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This study aimed to evaluate the current clinical practice patterns regarding the utilization of “Urolithiasis Guidelines” in Turkey and to identify critical factors influencing their application by urologists.</p> Methods <p>The study targeted practicing urologists in Turkey, primarily those involved in the management of urolithiasis, to assess their perspectives and experiences regarding the clinical application of established guidelines. A total of 415 urology specialists were invited to participate in a survey-based study conducted via Google Forms. Participation was voluntary, and 65.08% of the invited urologists completed the survey.</p> Results <p>Among the respondents, 84.7% reported utilizing the available guidelines in their routine clinical practice, with varying frequencies of reference. The primary motivations for guideline use were the prevention of potential complications and the avoidance of legal risks, as indicated by 90.5% of respondents. While 56.9% of participants adhered to the guidelines as a clinically standardized practice, 41.6% reported applying the recommendations on a case-by-case basis. Notably, 41.0% of respondents emphasized the need for locally adapted versions of guideline texts. Additionally, nearly half of the participants reported receiving no formal education or training on the significance, content, and practical application of these guidelines. Furthermore, 12.7% expressed skepticism about the evidence-based foundation of the guidelines, questioning whether the recommendations were derived from rigorously conducted studies.</p> Conclusion <p>The available urolithiasis guidelines are recognized as valuable resources offering key recommendations for the effective and safe management of urolithiasis. However, findings from this survey highlight significant variability in clinical practice patterns due to local conditions and the individual experience and attitudes of practicing urologists. The application of guideline recommendations is further influenced by perceptions regarding their development, content, and practicality. Insights gathered from this study may contribute to improving the preparation, dissemination, and implementation of urolithiasis guidelines, particularly in adapting them to local clinical settings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Local clinical practice patterns in urolithiasis guidelines: a critical evaluation from Turkey

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月3日

查看全文
  • Kemal Sarica,
  • Rasim Güzel,
  • Zeki Bayraktar,
  • Salih Yildirim,
  • Hikmet Yasar,
  • Göksu Sarica,
  • Cahit Sahın

摘要

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the current clinical practice patterns regarding the utilization of “Urolithiasis Guidelines” in Turkey and to identify critical factors influencing their application by urologists.

Methods

The study targeted practicing urologists in Turkey, primarily those involved in the management of urolithiasis, to assess their perspectives and experiences regarding the clinical application of established guidelines. A total of 415 urology specialists were invited to participate in a survey-based study conducted via Google Forms. Participation was voluntary, and 65.08% of the invited urologists completed the survey.

Results

Among the respondents, 84.7% reported utilizing the available guidelines in their routine clinical practice, with varying frequencies of reference. The primary motivations for guideline use were the prevention of potential complications and the avoidance of legal risks, as indicated by 90.5% of respondents. While 56.9% of participants adhered to the guidelines as a clinically standardized practice, 41.6% reported applying the recommendations on a case-by-case basis. Notably, 41.0% of respondents emphasized the need for locally adapted versions of guideline texts. Additionally, nearly half of the participants reported receiving no formal education or training on the significance, content, and practical application of these guidelines. Furthermore, 12.7% expressed skepticism about the evidence-based foundation of the guidelines, questioning whether the recommendations were derived from rigorously conducted studies.

Conclusion

The available urolithiasis guidelines are recognized as valuable resources offering key recommendations for the effective and safe management of urolithiasis. However, findings from this survey highlight significant variability in clinical practice patterns due to local conditions and the individual experience and attitudes of practicing urologists. The application of guideline recommendations is further influenced by perceptions regarding their development, content, and practicality. Insights gathered from this study may contribute to improving the preparation, dissemination, and implementation of urolithiasis guidelines, particularly in adapting them to local clinical settings.