Abstract and Introduction
Abstract
Purpose of Review: We reviewed the latest guidelines on urolithiasis to highlight the commonalities and differences in the most important recommendations.
Recent Findings: Most guidelines utilize systematic review of literature and grade evidence to generate the appropriate recommendations and statements. Only the latest versions of guidelines were included in this review.
Summary: Four national and international guidelines were included in this review, including those of the EAU (European Association of Urology), the AUA (American Urological Association)/ES (Endourological Society), the UAA (Urological Association of Asia) and the NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines. There are general similarities in the most important recommendations. The EAU guidelines provide the latest evidence updates.
Introduction
Urolithiasis is a common health problem worldwide and poses a major economic burden for healthcare systems.[1] It is estimated to have a prevalence that ranges from 4 to 20% depending on geographical, dietary, socioeconomic and genetic factors.[2]
Many national and international clinical societies have created guidelines to help physicians navigate through diagnosis, management and follow up of urolithiasis. Most clinical practice guidelines are based on systematic review of literature and grading of evidence to eventually provide the appropriate recommendations and statements.[3,4]
In the present review, we evaluate various guidelines that have been recently published or updated, in order to provide a summary of the important similarities and discordances on clinical practice recommendations for urolithiasis.
Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31(2):125-129. © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
