Attitudes to evidence-based practice in urology: Results of a survey

Background: The advantages of promoting evidence-based care through implementation of clinical guidelines are well established. Clinical practice guidelines have been developed for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and prostate cancer screening. Aspects of the delivery of care by urologists or specialist registrars relevant to the guidelines were assessed. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed at the 1999 meeting of the Urological Society of Australasia, which was attended by 187 Australasian and 33 foreign delegates. Questions addressed access to resources for evidence-based medicine; perceived need; preferred sources of information; and then presented four clinical scenarios. These were: (i) treatment recommendations in early stage prostate cancer; (ii) the same scenario if the respondent was the patient; (iii) treatment recommendations after radical prostatectomy when there was a positive resection margin; and (iv) clinical investigations for mild to moderate LUTS. Results: Of 220 possible responses, 132 were received, a response rate of 60%. Urologists overwhelmingly (100%) endorsed the need for access to evidence-based reviews, although 28% claimed such access was non-existent to poor. Clinical guidelines were the preferred source of evidence-based information. For early stage prostate cancer in a 55-year-old man, radical prostatectomy was recommended by 93.2% of respondents, but this dropped to 83% when the respondent was the patient (P < 0.05), and a wider range of treatments was recommended. Pelvic radiotherapy and hormone therapy were equally recommended for biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy where there was a positive surgical margin. Investigations for LUTS included serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing (78.0%) and voided flow studies (77.3%). Conclusions: Urologists express a need for evidence-based practice resources, in particular clinical guidelines. Nevertheless their clinical approach is not necessarily consistent with existing guidelines, particularly for LUTS. An alteration in the recommendation when the respondent is the patient of interest and endorses the recommendation that patients with prostate cancer should be involved in treatment decisions.