Analysis of the AUA Guidelines: Strength of Evidence Correlates With Recommendation Levels

• Published in: Urology practice Vol. 10; no. 2; pp. 116 - 121
• Main Authors: Du, Chris, Harandi, Arshia Aalami, Hwang, Kuemin, Hill, John, Adler, Howard L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.03.2023
• Subjects: practice guideline; evidence-based practice; urology
• ISSN: 2352-0787
• DOI: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000373

As part of its mission to provide the highest standards of clinical care, the AUA publishes guidelines on numerous urological topics. We sought to evaluate the caliber of evidence used establish the currently available AUA guidelines. All available AUA guideline statements in 2021 were reviewed for their level of evidence and recommendation strength. Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences between oncological and nononcologic topics, and statements pertinent to diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. A multivariate analysis was utilized to identify factors associated with strong recommendations. A total of 939 statements across 29 guidelines were analyzed; 39 (4.2%) were backed by Grade A evidence, 188 (20%) Grade B, 297 (31.6%) Grade C, 185 (19.7%) Clinical Principle, and 230 (24.5%) Expert Opinion. There was a significant association of oncology guidelines (6% vs 3%, = .021) with more grade A evidence and less Grade C Evidence (24% vs 35%, = .002 . Statements pertaining to diagnosis and evaluation were more likely backed by Clinical Principle (31% vs 14% vs 15%, < .01), treatment statements backed by B (26% vs 13% vs 11%, < .01) and C (35% vs 30% vs 17%, < .01) grade evidence, and follow-up statements backed by Expert Opinion (53% vs 23% vs 24%, < .01). On multivariate analysis, strong recommendations were more likely supported by high-grade evidence (OR = 12, < .01). The majority of evidence for the AUA guidelines is not high grade. Additional high-quality urological studies are needed to improve evidence based urological care.