Urological Infections

2. METHODS

2.1. Introduction

For the 2024 Urological Infections Guidelines, new and relevant evidence was identified, collated and appraised through a structured assessment of the literature for sections 3.3 Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Adults and 3.16.2.8 Peri-Procedural Antibiotic Prophylaxis - Prostate Biopsy. Broad and comprehensive literature searches, covering these sections were performed. Databases searched included Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Libraries. The time frames covered and the number of unique records identified, retrieved and screened for relevance for each section were:

Detailed search strategies are available online: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urological-infections/publications-appendices. In addition, the current evidence base of section 3.5 Recurrent UTI was re-assessed and the recommendations reviewed.

Recommendations 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 [3];
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 [4].

Additional methodology information and a list of associations endorsing the EAU Guidelines can be found in the online: https://uroweb.org/eau-guidelines/methodology-policies.

2.2. Review

This document was subject to independent peer review prior to publication in 2019.