No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundUrological mobile medical (mHealth) apps are gaining popularity with both clinicians and patients. mHealth is a rapidly evolving and heterogeneous field, with some urology apps being downloaded over 10,000 times and others not at all. The factors that contribute to medical app downloads have yet to be identified, including the hypothetical influence of expert involvement in app development.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to identify predictors of the number of urology app downloads.MethodsWe reviewed urology apps available in the Google Play Store and collected publicly available data. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression evaluated the effect of publicly available app variables on the number of apps being downloaded.ResultsOf 129 urology apps eligible for study, only 2 (1.6%) had >10,000 downloads, with half having ≤100 downloads and 4 (3.1%) having none at all. Apps developed with expert urologist involvement (P=.003), optional in-app purchases (P=.01), higher user rating (P<.001), and more user reviews (P<.001) were more likely to be installed. App cost was inversely related to the number of downloads (P<.001). Only data from the Google Play Store and the developers’ websites, but not other platforms, were publicly available for analysis, and the level and nature of expert involvement was not documented.ConclusionsThe explicit participation of urologists in app development is likely to enhance its chances to have a higher number of downloads. This finding should help in the design of better apps and further promote urologist involvement in mHealth. Official certification processes are required to ensure app quality and user safety.

IntroductionSmartphones are increasingly playing a role in healthcare and previous studies assessing medical applications (apps) have raised concerns about lack of expert involvement and low content accuracy. However, there are no such studies in Urology. We reviewed Urology apps with the aim of assessing the level of participation of healthcare professionals (HCP) and scientific Urology associations in their development.Material and MethodsA systematic search was performed on PubMed, Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store, for Urology apps, available in English. Apps were reviewed by three graders to determine the app’s platform, target customer, developer, app type, app category, price and the participation of a HCP or a scientific Urology association in the development.ResultsThe search yielded 372 apps, of which 150 were specific for Urology. A fifth of all apps had no HCP involvement (20.7%) and only a third had been developed with a scientific Urology association (34.7%). The lowest percentage of HCP (13.4%) and urological association (1.9%) involvement was in apps designed for the general population. Furthermore, there was no contribution from an Urology society in "Electronic Medical Record" nor in "Patient Information" apps. A limitation of the study is that only Android and iOS apps were reviewed.ConclusionsDespite the increasing Mobile Health (mHealth) market, this is the first study that demonstrates the lack of expert participation in the design of Urology apps, particularly in apps designed for the general public. Until clear regulation is enforced, the urological community should help regulate app development. Maintaining a register of certified apps or issuing an official scientific seal of approval could improve overall app quality. We propose that urologists become stakeholders in mHealth, shaping future app design and promoting peer-review app validation.

No abstract

HighlightsMenstrual cup is gaining more acceptance and it is important for clinicians to be aware of this device and its possible complications.It is important to be familiarized with these devices in order to recognize its complications.Mechanical complications may occur and the management of these problems could be variable.

Purpose of review To assess patterns of presentation, diagnostics and treatment in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), a multicentre registry was launched. Clinical data of UTUC patients were prospectively collected over a 5-year period. Recent findings Data from 2380 patients were included from 2014 to 2019 (101 centres in 29 countries). Patients were predominantly male (70.5%) and 53.3% were past or present smokers. The majority of patients (58.1%) were evaluated because of symptoms, mainly macroscopic hematuria. Computed tomography (CT) was the most common performed imaging modality (90.5%). A ureteroscopy (URS) was part of the diagnostic process in 1184 (49.7%) patients and 488 (20.5%) patients were treated endoscopically. In total, 1430 patients (60.1%) were treated by a radical nephroureterectomy, 59% without a prior diagnostic URS. Eighty-two patients (3.4%) underwent a segmental resection, 19 patients (0.8%) were treated by a percutaneous tumour resection. Summary Our data is in line with the known epidemiologic characteristics of UTUC. CT imaging is the preferred imaging modality as also recommended by guidelines. Diagnostic URS gained a stronger position, however, in almost half of patients a definitive treatment decision was made without complete endoscopic information. Only one-third of patients with UTUC are currently treated with kidney sparing surgery.

Background Available guidelines on the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) are restricted due to the lack of strong evidence–based recommendations. Adequate, well-powered randomized trials are missing due to the rarity of the disease. To overcome this problem, we need alternative study designs to provide generalizable data. Objective The primary aim of this registry is to provide a real-world overview on patterns of presentation and management of UTUC. Secondary objectives include comparison of outcomes of different treatments and tumor stages and evaluation of compliance with the current European Association of Urology recommendations for UTUC. Methods For this observational, international, multicenter, cohort study, clinical data of consecutive patients suspected of having UTUC, irrespective of type of management, will be prospectively collected up to 5 years after inclusion. Data on the patterns of presentation, diagnostics, and treatment as well as short-, mid-, and long-term oncological and functional outcomes will be analyzed. Possible associations between variables, basal characteristics, and outcomes will be tested by multivariable analyses. The methodology will address potential sources of bias and confounders. Results The registry was initiated in November 2014 after obtaining institutional review board approval. Data collection started in December 2014. At the time of submission of this manuscript, 2451 patients from 125 centers from 37 countries were included. Inclusion of patients will be closed 5 years after initiation of the registry. Quality checks will be performed centrally with continuous communication and feedback with the centers to ensure accuracy. The first results are expected in the first trimester of 2020. Conclusions This large observational prospective cohort will generate landmark “real-world” data and hypotheses for further studies. We expect these data to optimize the management of UTUC, provide insights on harms and benefits of treatment, and serve as quality control. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02281188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02281188. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/15363