European Association of Urology
Guidelines
Education & Events
Join our events Join our events
On-demand education Learn at your own pace
Scholarships Enrich your capabilities
Exchange Programmes Urology beyond Europe
Education Educational Platforms Talent Incubator Programme Accreditation
Science & Publications
Publications Our publications
Research & Science Passionate about research?
About
Who we are Our mission and history
Our Board and Offices How we work
Join the EAU Find out about membership
Vacancies Contact
Guidelines

Urolithiasis

Want to read the guideline in your own time? Download the PDF

Download full guideline

Looking for a quick overview? Check the pocket guidelines.

Download pocket guidelines
Full text guidelineSummary of ChangesPublications & AppendicesPanelRelated content
No results found
  1. Introduction
  2. Methods
  3. Guidelines
  4. Metabolic Evaluation And Recurrence Prevention
  5. Follow Up Of Urinary Stones
  6. Bladder Stones
  7. References
  8. Conflict Of Interest
  9. Citation Information
2. Methods
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Methods
  • 3. Guidelines
  • 4. Metabolic Evaluation And Recurrence Prevention
  • 5. Follow Up Of Urinary Stones
  • 6. Bladder Stones
  • 7. References
  • 8. Conflict Of Interest
  • 9. Citation Information
  • No elements found. Consider changing the search query.
  • List is empty.

2. METHODS

2.1. Methods

Recommendation within the Guidelines are developed by the panels to prioritise clinically important care decisions. The strength of each recommendation is determined by the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies, the quality of the evidence (including certainty of estimates), and the nature and variability of patient values and preferences. This decision process, which can be reviewed in the strength rating forms which accompany each guideline statement, addresses a number of key elements:

  1. the overall quality of the evidence which exists for the recommendation [4];
  2. the magnitude of the effect (individual or combined effects);
  3. the certainty of the results (precision, consistency, heterogeneity and other statistical or study-related factors);
  4. the balance between desirable and undesirable outcomes;
  5. the impact and certainty of patient values and preferences on the intervention

Strong recommendations typically indicate a high degree of evidence quality and / or a favourable balance of benefit to harm and patient preference. Weak recommendations typically indicate availability of lower quality evidence, and/or equivocal balance between benefit and harm, and uncertainty or variability of patient preference [5].

Additional information can be found in the general Methodology section of this print, and online at the EAU website: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis/publications-appendices. A list of associations endorsing the EAU Guidelines can also be viewed online at the above address.

2.2. Review

The 2015 Urolithiasis Guidelines were subjected to peer review prior to publication. Chapter 6, detailing the treatment and follow-up of bladder stones was peer-reviewed in 2019.

About EAU
  • Who we are
  • How we work
  • Become a member
Services
  • MyEAU
  • Congress registrations
  • Abstract submission
Media
  • EAU News
  • EAU Newsletter
  • EAU Press Releases
Contact
  • EAU Central Office
    PO Box 30016
    NL-6803 AA ARNHEM
    The Netherlands

  • Contact us
About EAU
Who we areHow we workBecome a member
Services
MyEAUCongress registrationsAbstract submission
Media
EAU NewsEAU NewsletterEAU Press Releases
Contact

EAU Central Office
PO Box 30016
NL-6803 AA ARNHEM
The Netherlands

Contact us
European Association of Urology
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer