The evidence-based statements are provided for diagnosis and overall management of OAB, as well as for the various treatments. Diagnosis and treatment methodologies can be expected to change as the evidence base grows and as new treatment strategies become obtainable.

BACKGROUND-Midurethral slings are increasingly used for the treatment of stress incontinence, but there are limited data comparing types of slings and associated complications.

Purpose: This document seeks to establish guidance for the evaluation and management of women with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTI) to prevent inappropriate use of antibiotics, decrease the risk of antibiotic resistance, reduce adverse effects of antibiotic use, provide guidance on antibiotic and nonantibiotic strategies for prevention, and improve clinical outcomes and quality of life by reducing recurrence of urinary tract infection (UTI) events. Materials and Methods: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by a methodology team at the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 1 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2017) and Embase (through January 16, 2018). An update literature search was conducted on September 20, 2018. Results: When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low). Such evidence-based statements are provided as Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In instances of insufficient evidence, additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. Conclusions: Our ability to diagnose, treat, and manage rUTI long-term has evolved due to additional insights into the pathophysiology of rUTI, a new appreciation for the adverse effects of repetitive antimicrobial therapy, rising rates of bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and better reporting of the natural history and clinical outcomes of acute cystitis and rUTI. As new data continue to emerge in this space, this document will undergo review to ensure continued accuracy.

BACKGROUND Urodynamic studies are commonly performed in women before surgery for stress urinary incontinence, but there is no good evidence that they improve outcomes. METHODS We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence to compare outcomes after preoperative office evaluation and urodynamic tests or evaluation only. The primary outcome was treatment success at 12 months, defined as a reduction in the score on the Urogenital Distress Inventory of 70% or more and a response of “much better” or “very much better” on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The predetermined noninferiority margin was 11 percentage points. RESULTS A total of 630 women were randomly assigned to undergo office evaluation with urodynamic tests or evaluation only (315 per group); the proportion in whom treatment was successful was 76.9% in the urodynamic-testing group versus 77.2% in the evaluation-only group (difference, −0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −7.5 to 6.9), which was consistent with noninferiority. There were no significant between-group differences in secondary measures of incontinence severity, quality of life, patient satisfaction, rates of positive provocative stress tests, voiding dysfunction, or adverse events. Women who underwent urodynamic tests were significantly less likely to receive a diagnosis of overactive bladder and more likely to receive a diagnosis of voiding-phase dysfunction, but these changes did not lead to significant between-group differences in treatment selection or outcomes. CONCLUSIONS For women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence, preoperative office evaluation alone was not inferior to evaluation with urodynamic testing for outcomes at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00803959.)