Quality Indicators in the Clinical Specialty of Urology: A Systematic Review

Harvey Jia Wei Koh, Emma Whitelock-Wainwright, Dragan Gasevic, David Rankin, Lorena Romero, Mark Frydenberg, Sue Evans, Stella Talic

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review


Context: In health care, monitoring of quality indicators (QIs) in general urology remains underdeveloped in comparison to other clinical specialties. Objective: To identify, synthesise, and appraise QIs that monitor in-hospital care for urology patients. Evidence acquisition: This systematic review included peer-reviewed articles identified via Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Global Health, Google Scholar, and grey literature from 2000 to February 19, 2021. The review was carried out under the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) tool for quality assessment. Evidence synthesis: A total of 5111 articles and 62 government agencies were screened for QI sets. There were a total of 57 QI sets included for analysis. Most QIs focused on uro-oncology, with prostate, bladder, and testicular cancers the most represented. The most common QIs were surgical QIs in uro-oncology (positive surgical margin, surgical volume), whereas in non-oncology the QIs most frequently reported were for treatment and diagnosis. Out of 61 articles, only four scored a total of ≥50% on the AIRE tool across four domains. Aside from QIs developed in uro-oncology, general urological QIs are underdeveloped and of poor methodological quality and most lack testing for both content validity and reliability. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for the development of methodologically robust QIs in the clinical specialty of general urology for patients to enable standardised quality of care monitoring and to improve patient outcomes. Patient summary: We investigated a range of quality indicators (QIs) that provide health care professionals with feedback on the quality of their care for patients with general urological diseases. We found that aside from urological cancers, there is a lack of QIs for general urology. Hence, there is an urgent need for the development of robust and disease-specific QIs in general urology.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages12
JournalEuropean Urology Focus
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 26 Dec 2022


  • Benign prostatic hyperplasia
  • Bladder cancer
  • Prostate cancer
  • Quality indicators
  • Quality of care
  • Testicular cancer
  • Urinary incontinence
  • Urinary tract infection
  • Urology

Cite this