We have located links that may give you full text access.
English Abstract
Journal Article
Review
[Critical review of guidelines for female urinary incontinence diagnosis and treatment].
Progrès en Urologie 2012 October
OBJECTIVES: To provide a critical review of the currently available guidelines on female urinary incontinence diagnosis and treatment.
METHODS: Through a review of Medline, we identified the guidelines produced by five associations: French Urological Association (AFU), French National College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF), American Urological Association (AUA), European Association of Urology (EAU) and International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). These guidelines were evaluated by the instrument provided by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation. Then, the diagnosis and treatment recommendations were compared.
RESULTS: The quality of guidelines were variable. Three of them (CNGOF, AFU, EAU) yielded to a score of more than 70. The rigor of development was not always optimal with a dilemma between evidence based medicine and the practice of experts. The best guidelines based on excellent meta-analysis failed to consider the recent modifications of management.
CONCLUSIONS: We found many differences in the quality of available guidelines.
METHODS: Through a review of Medline, we identified the guidelines produced by five associations: French Urological Association (AFU), French National College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF), American Urological Association (AUA), European Association of Urology (EAU) and International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). These guidelines were evaluated by the instrument provided by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation. Then, the diagnosis and treatment recommendations were compared.
RESULTS: The quality of guidelines were variable. Three of them (CNGOF, AFU, EAU) yielded to a score of more than 70. The rigor of development was not always optimal with a dilemma between evidence based medicine and the practice of experts. The best guidelines based on excellent meta-analysis failed to consider the recent modifications of management.
CONCLUSIONS: We found many differences in the quality of available guidelines.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app