Search

Background and Objective: Readability of patient education materials is of utmost importance to ensure understandability and dissemination of health care information in uro-oncology. We aimed to investigate the readability of the official patient education materials of the European Association of Urology (EAU) and American Urology Association (AUA)., Methods: Patient education materials for prostate, bladder, kidney, testicular, penile, and urethral cancers were retrieved from the respective organizations. Readability was assessed via the WebFX online tool for Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) and for reading grade levels by Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GFS), Smog Index (SI), Coleman Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Layperson readability was defined as a FRES of ≥70 and with the other readability indexes <7 according to European Union recommendations. This study assessed only objective readability and no other metrics such as understandability., Key Findings and Limitations: Most patient education materials failed to meet the recommended threshold for laypersons. The mean readability for EAU patient education material was as follows: FRES 50.9 (standard error [SE]: 3.0), and FKGL, GFS, SI, CLI, and ARI all with scores ≥7. The mean readability for AUA patient material was as follows: FRES 64.0 (SE: 1.4), with all of FKGL, GFS, SI, and ARI scoring ≥7 readability. Only 13 out of 70 (18.6%) patient education materials' paragraphs met the readability requirements. The mean readability for bladder cancer patient education materials was the lowest, with a FRES of 36.7 (SE: 4.1)., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Patient education materials from leading urological associations reveal readability levels beyond the recommended thresholds for laypersons and may not be understood easily by patients. There is a future need for more patient-friendly reading materials., Patient Summary: This study checked whether health information about different cancers was easy to read. Most of it was too hard for patients to understand., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals., Materials and Methods: In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures., Results: Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%)., Conclusions: Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Gender composition among surgical academic leadership, including academic medical journals, disproportionately favors men and may inadvertently introduce a bias. An understanding of the factors associated with gender representation among urologic journals may aid in prioritizing an equitable balance., Objective: To evaluate female representation on editorial boards of pre-eminent international urologic journals., Design, Setting, and Participants: The names and position descriptions of urologic journal leadership appointees were collected in October 2021. Gender was assessed using gender-api.com or through personal title, as available. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to describe associations between SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) quartile and geographic region with female gender representation. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 the bottom quartile concordant with journal impact factor., Results and Limitations: A total of 105 urology-focused journals were identified with 5989 total editorial board members, including 877 (14.6%) female, 5112 (85.4%) male, and two nonbinary persons. Female representation differed significantly by journal leadership position, SJR quartile, and geographic region. On the multivariate analysis of overall female representation, Q1 journals had higher odds of female representation than Q2 and Q3 journals, and had no significant difference from Q4 journals. Additionally, compared with Western Europe, North American journals had 78% higher odds while Asiatic journals had 50% lower odds of female representation. This study is limited by the inability to account for outside factors that lead to invitation or acceptance of journal leadership positions., Conclusions: Contemporary female leadership at urology journals is about six times less common than male leadership across all journals, although trends in their proportion were noted when assessed by journal quartile and region. Addressing this gender imbalance represents an important step toward achieving gender equity in the field of urology., Patient Summary: In this study, we looked at the gender balance of academic journal leaders who serve as gatekeepers for sharing urologic research with the public. We found that the most prestigious journals and those in western countries tended to have the highest female representation. We hope that these findings help the academic community recognize and improve gender representation., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)