Evidence mapPaperPMID 38110701Full record

ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024

[Possibilities and limitations of national guidelines based on the example of pediatric urology guidelines from the Pediatric Urology Working Group of the Austrian Society for Urology and Andrology (ÖGU)].

Josef Oswald

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Josef OswaldAbteilung für Kinderurologie, Ordensklinikum Linz GmbH, Barmherzige Schwestern, Seilerstätte 4, 4010, Linz, Österreich. josef.oswald@ordensklinikum.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical guidelines are defined as practical orientation and decision-making aids; they are legally defined as noncommittal recommendations. International guidelines are written in very general terms, especially in the case of heterogeneous clinical pictures (e.g., vesicoureteral reflux).

objectiveCould national guidelines based on international recommendations become authoritative as specific treatment recommendations for the various specialist groups? MATERIALS AND

methodsThe value of international and national guidelines was assessed using the example case history of a child affected with vesicoureteral reflux.

resultsDue to the various therapeutic possibilities according to various guidelines, the child received unfavorable, incongruent, delayed, and repeated unsuccessful attempts with different treatment regimes

conclusionDue to the nonbinding nature of general guidelines, there is a risk of suboptimal therapy. National guidelines aimed at individualized treatment recommendations should aim for higher medical and legal status.

Indexed as

AndrologyUrologyVesico-Ureteral RefluxAustriaChildHumansDecision-making aidsFalse diagnosisLegal significancePractice guidelinesRecommendation character

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.