• Gunnar Aus, Christopher Chapple, Tomas Hanûs, Jacques Irani, Bernard Lobel, Tillmann Loch, Dionysios Mitropoulos, Keith Parsons, Karin Plass, and Hans-Peter Schmid.
• Department of Urology, Sahlgrens University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden. gunnar.aus@vgregion.se
• Eur. Urol. 2009 Nov 1;56(5):859-64.

ObjectivesGuidelines can be produced and written in numerous ways. The aim of the present article is to describe and evaluate the method currently used to produce the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines.Design, Setting, And ParticipantsThe methodology is described in detail, compared to other urologic guidelines by members of the EAU Guidelines Office Board.MeasurementsThe new methodology is evaluated by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument.Results And LimitationsThe currently used methodology is adapted to the aims and objectives as established by the EAU for their guidelines; wide coverage (essentially all fields of urology) and useful to urologists all over Europe. The frequent updates are easily accessible in a printed and electronic format. The AGREE instrument supports these strong points, but also identifies potentially weak points, such as no patient involvement, no formal validation of the guidelines texts prior to publication, and lack of discussion of organisational barriers and cost implications.ConclusionThe currently used methodology for the production of EAU guidelines fulfils the association's main objectives related to their guidelines, but the texts will benefit from the inclusion of country-specific cost and organisational data. For the practising clinician, these guidelines will help to take science into clinical practice.

13 keywords...

hide…