Consensus statement addressing controversies and guidelines on pediatric urolithiasis
International consensus (World J Urol) · 2024 · international
Source and licence
- Authors
- S. Güven, T. Tokas, A. Tozsin et al.
- Title
- Consensus statement addressing controversies and guidelines on pediatric urolithiasis
- Journal
- World Journal of Urology, 2024
- Licence
- CC BY 4.0
- Changes
- Verbatim excerpts; formatting adapted
Full text retrieved 2026-10-27 from Europe PMC · PMC11306500
Licence statement of the original publication
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This page reproduces excerpts of the original publication; the original is authoritative. It has not been reviewed by a physician, does not state a recommendation of Medelix and does not replace medical advice. The guideline may have been updated since.
Open the original publication →Full text on Europe PMC
Recommendations
We found no explicitly labelled recommendations in this publication; its recommendations are in the running text of the original.
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to investigate controversial pediatric urolithiasis issues systematically, integrating expert consensus and comprehensive guidelines reviews.
Methods: Two semi-structured online focus group meetings were conducted to discuss the study’s need and content, review current literature, and prepare the initial survey. Data were collected through surveys and focus group discussions. Existing guidelines were reviewed, and a second survey was conducted using the Delphi method to validate findings and facilitate consensus. The primary outcome measures investigated controversial issues, integrating expert consensus and guideline reviews.
Results: Experts from 15 countries participated, including 20 with 16+ years of experience, 2 with 11–15 years, and 4 with 6–10 years. The initial survey identified nine main themes, emphasizing the need for standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols and tailored treatments. Inter-rater reliability was high, with controversies in treatment approaches (score 4.6, 92% agreement), follow-up protocols (score 4.8, 100% agreement), and diagnostic criteria (score 4.6, 92% agreement). The second survey underscored the critical need for consensus on identification, diagnostic criteria (score 4.6, 92% agreement), and standardized follow-up protocols (score 4.8, 100% agreement).
Conclusion: The importance of personalized treatment in pediatric urolithiasis is clear. Prioritizing low-radiation diagnostic tools, effectively managing residual stone fragments, and standardized follow-up protocols are crucial for improving patient outcomes. Integrating new technologies while ensuring safety and reliability is also essential. Harmonizing guidelines across regions can provide consistent and effective management. Future efforts should focus on collaborative research, specialized training, and the integration of new technologies in treatment protocols.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-024-05161-4.
Contents of the original publication
The section headings of the original.
- Introduction
- Methods
- Type of study/location
- Development phase
- Data collection and analysis
- Guideline reviews
- Validation phase
- Delphi process
- Results
- Development of quantitative survey
- Review of guidelines
- Research priorities and areas for further study
- Second round of Delphi
- Discussion
A question about this guideline?
Medelix answers clinical questions from guidelines and studies – every statement with its source.
Are you the rights holder and object to this reproduction? Write to contact@medelix.ai and we will take the page down promptly. Imprint