nach oben

World Journal of Urology

Erschienen in:

04.11.2023 | Topic Paper

Patient’s preferences: an unmet need by current urolithiasis guidelines: a systematic review

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 12/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Shared decision making (SDM) in surgical specialties was demonstrated to diminish decisional regret, decisional anxiety and decisional conflict. Urolithiasis guidelines do not explicit patient preference to choose treatment. The aim of this review article was to perform a systematic evaluation of published evidence regarding SDM in urinary stone treatment.

Methods

A systematic review in accordance PRISMA checklist was conducted using the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated stone treatment preferences. Reviews, editorials, case reports and video abstracts were excluded. ROBUST checklist was used to assess quality of the studies.

Results

188 articles were obtained. After applying the predefined selection criteria, seven articles were included for final analysis. Six out of seven studies were questionnaires that propose clinical scenarios and treatment alternatives. The last study was a patient preference trial. A general trend among included studies showed a patient preference towards the least invasive option (SWL over URS). The main reasons to choose one treatment over the other were stone-free rates, risk of complications and invasiveness.

Discussion

This review provides an overview of the patients’ preferences towards stone treatment in small- and medium-sized stones. There was a clear preference towards the least invasive management strategy. The main reason was less invasiveness. This is opposed to the global trends of performing more ureteroscopies and less SWL. Physicians played a pivotal role in counselling patients. SDM should be encouraged and improved. The main limitation of this study is the characteristics of the included studies.

Omar M, Tarplin S, Brown R, Sivalingam S, Monga M (2016) Shared decision making: why do patients choose ureteroscopy? Urolithiasis 44(2):167–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0806-0CrossRefPubMed

Makarov D, Fagerlin A, Finkelstein J et al (2022) American Urological Association (AUA) implementation of shared decision making into urological American Urological Association (AUA) shared decision making. (April):1–19

Shirk JD, Crespi CM, Saucedo JD et al (2017) Does patient preference measurement in decision aids improve decisional conflict? A randomized trial in men with prostate cancer. Patient 10(6):785–798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0255-7CrossRefPubMed

Niburski K, Guadagno E, Abbasgholizadeh-Rahimi S, Poenaru D (2020) Shared decision making in surgery: a meta-analysis of existing literature. Patient 13(6):667–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00443-6CrossRefPubMed

Lane GI, Ellimoottil C, Wallner L, Meeks W, Mbassa R, Clemens JQ (2020) Shared decision-making in urologic practice: results from the 2019 AUA census. Urology 145:66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.078CrossRefPubMed

Skolarikos A, Jung H, Neisius A et al (2023) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Assoc Urol Guidel (March):1–20. https://www.uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/22-Urolithiasis_LR_full.pdf

Penniston KL, Nakada SY (2016) Treatment expectations and health-related quality of life in stone formers. Curr Opin Urol 26(1):50–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000236CrossRefPubMed

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nudelman G, Otto K (2020) The development of a new generic risk-of-bias measure for systematic reviews of surveys. Methodology 16(4):278–298. https://doi.org/10.5964/METH.4329CrossRef

10.

Bell JR, Penniston KL, Best SL, Nakada SY (2017) A survey of patient preferences regarding medical expulsive therapy following the SUSPEND trial. Can J Urol 24(3):8827–8831PubMed

11.

Kuo R, Aslan P, Abrahamse P, Matchar D, Preminger G (1999) Incorporation of patient preferences in the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi: a decision analytical view. J Urol 162(6):1913. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67394-6CrossRefPubMed

12.

Sarkissian C, Noble M, Li J, Monga M (2013) Patient decision making for asymptomatic renal calculi: Balancing benefit and risk. Urology 81(2):236–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.10.032CrossRefPubMed

13.

Walters A, Massella V, Pietropaolo A, Seoane LM, Somani B (2022) Decision-making, preference, and treatment choice for asymptomatic renal stones-balancing benefit and risk of observation and surgical intervention: a real-world survey using social media platform. J Endourol 36(4):522–527. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0677CrossRefPubMed

14.

Spradling K, Bhambhvani HP, Chang T et al (2021) Evaluation of patient treatment preferences for 15 to 20 mm kidney stones: a conjoint analysis. J Endourol 35(5):706–711. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0370CrossRefPubMed

15.

Karlsen SJ, Renkel J, Tahir AR, Angelsen A, Diep LM (2007) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for 5- to 10-mm stones in the proximal ureter: prospective effectiveness patient-preference trial. J Endourol 21(1):28–33. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.0153CrossRefPubMed

16.

Canvasser N, Lay A, Kolitz E, Antonelli J, Pearle M (2017) Mp75-12 Prospective evaluation of stone free rates by computed tomography after aggressive ureteroscopy. J Urol 197(4S):e1007–e1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.2160CrossRef

17.

Kim HJ, Daignault-Newton S, Dibianco JM et al (2022) Real-world practice stone-free rates after ureteroscopy from a surgical collaborative: Much to improve. Eur Urol 81:S1510–S1511. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(22)01105-8CrossRef

18.

Montorsi F (2019) On having grey hair. Eur Urol 75(4):541–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.002CrossRefPubMed

19.

Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK (2017) Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol 31(6):547–556. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0895CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ates F, Zor M, Yılmaz O et al (2016) Management behaviors of the urology practitioners to the small lower calyceal stones: the results of a web-based survey. Urolithiasis 44(3):277–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0825-xCrossRefPubMed

21.

Shinkunas LA, Klipowicz CJ, Carlisle EM (2020) Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 20(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01211-0CrossRef

22.

Voelker R (1996) Nocebos contribute to host of ills. JAMA 275(5):345–347. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.275.5.345CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hahn RA (1997) The nocebo phenomenon: concept, evidence, and implications for public health. Prev Med (Baltim) 26(5):607–611. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1996.0124CrossRef

24.

Eaker ED, Pinsky J, Castelli WP (1992) Myocardial infarction and coronary death among women: psychosocial predictors from a 20-year follow-up of women in the Framingham study. Am J Epidemiol 135(8):854–864. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116381CrossRefPubMed

25.

Mondaini N, Gontero P, Giubilei G et al (2007) Finasteride 5 mg and sexual side effects: how many of these are related to a Nocebo phenomenon? J Sex Med 4(6):1708–1712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00563.xCrossRefPubMed

26.

Braddock CH, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W (1999) Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 282(24):2313–2320. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.24.2313CrossRefPubMed

27.

Cabri JN, Saigal CS, Lambrechts S et al (2019) Decisional quality among patients making treatment decisions for urolithiasis. Urology 133:109–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.023CrossRefPubMed

28.

Maher DI, Serpell JW, Ayton D, Lee JC (2021) Patient reported experience on consenting for surgery—elective versus emergency patients. J Surg Res 265(September):114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.03.026CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gökce MI, Esen B, Sancl A, Akplnar C, Süer E, Gülplnar Ö (2017) A Novel decision aid to support informed decision-making process in patients with a symptomatic nonlower pole renal stone <20 mm in diameter. J Endourol 31(7):725–728. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0077CrossRefPubMed

30.

The SHARE Approach—Essential Steps of Shared Decisionmaking: Expanded Reference Guide with Sample Conversation Starters. Ahrq 1–14. https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/curriculum-tools/shareddecisionmaking/tools/tool-2/index.html

Titel: Patient’s preferences: an unmet need by current urolithiasis guidelines: a systematic review
Publikationsdatum: 04.11.2023
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 12/2023
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04678-4

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Patrone im Penis bringt Urologen in Gefahr

30.05.2024 Operationen am Penis Nachrichten

In Lebensgefahr brachte ein junger Mann nicht nur sich selbst, sondern auch das urologische Team, das ihm zu Hilfe kam: Er hatte sich zur Selbstbefriedigung eine scharfe Patrone in die Harnröhre gesteckt.

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

29.05.2024 Urothelkarzinom Nachrichten

Ob Patienten und Patientinnen mit neu diagnostiziertem Blasenkrebs ein Jahr später Bedauern über die Therapieentscheidung empfinden, wird einer Studie aus England zufolge von der Radikalität und dem Erfolg des Eingriffs beeinflusst.

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

28.05.2024 Onkologische Immuntherapie Nachrichten

„Kalte“ Tumoren werden heiß – CD28-kostimulatorische Antikörper sollen dies ermöglichen. Am besten könnten diese in Kombination mit BiTEs und Checkpointhemmern wirken. Erste klinische Studien laufen bereits.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Patient’s preferences: an unmet need by current urolithiasis guidelines: a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Patrone im Penis bringt Urologen in Gefahr

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

Update Urologie

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2023

MR-guided prostate SBRT in prostate cancer patients with low-volume metastatic disease

Self-reported urinary incontinence in women is higher with increased age, lower educational level, lower income, number of comorbidities, and impairment of mental health. Results of a large, population-based, national survey in Portugal

Positioning the role of urine cytology within the diagnostic pathway for UTUC: supportive but inconclusive

The influence of preoperative urodynamic parameters on clinical results in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia after transurethral resection of the prostate

Nephrometry scores to predict oncological outcomes following partial nephrectomy (UroCCR Study 70)

Cut-off time for surgery and prediction of orchiectomy in spermatic cord torsion: a retrospective multicentric study over 15 years

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Patrone im Penis bringt Urologen in Gefahr

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

Update Urologie