The Journal of urology · 2015
Peyronie's Disease: AUA Guideline.
СтатьяКлинические рекомендацииНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nehra Ajay, Alterowitz Ralph, Culkin Daniel J, Faraday Martha M, Hakim Lawrence S, Heidelbaugh Joel J, Khera Mohit, Kirkby Erin, McVary Kevin T, Miner Martin M, Nelson Christian J, Sadeghi-Nejad Hossein, Seftel Allen D, Shindel Alan W, Burnett Arthur L, American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.,
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of Peyronie's disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed®, EMBASE® and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 1/26/15) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of PD. The review yielded an evidence base of 303 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria.
RESULTS: The systematic review was used to create guideline statements regarding treatment of PD. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high quality evidence; high certainty), B (moderate quality evidence; moderate certainty), or C (low quality evidence; low certainty). Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional consensus statements related to the diagnosis of PD are provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions due to insufficient published evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a continually expanding literature on PD; the Panel notes that this document constitutes a clinical strategy and is not intended to be interpreted rigidly. The most effective approach for a particular patient is best determined by the individual clinician and patient in the context of that patient's history, values, and goals for treatment. As the science relevant to PD evolves and improves, the strategies presented here will be amended to remain consistent with the highest standards of clinical care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed®, EMBASE® and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 1/26/15) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of PD. The review yielded an evidence base of 303 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria.
RESULTS: The systematic review was used to create guideline statements regarding treatment of PD. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high quality evidence; high certainty), B (moderate quality evidence; moderate certainty), or C (low quality evidence; low certainty). Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional consensus statements related to the diagnosis of PD are provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions due to insufficient published evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a continually expanding literature on PD; the Panel notes that this document constitutes a clinical strategy and is not intended to be interpreted rigidly. The most effective approach for a particular patient is best determined by the individual clinician and patient in the context of that patient's history, values, and goals for treatment. As the science relevant to PD evolves and improves, the strategies presented here will be amended to remain consistent with the highest standards of clinical care.