Objective To analysis the original articles published in Chinese Journal of Urology and to evaluate the present situation of the clinical and scientific research in the field of urology, providing clue to raise the clinical and scientific research level. Methods Chinese Journal of Urology and Journal of Urology in American were hand-searched and all original articles were divided into eight types and were identified and analyzed. The classes include descriptive studies, therapeutic studies, studies on diagnosis, etiology, prognosis etc. Results The decreased trend year by year were observed for the descriptive studies (χ2=286.179, Plt;0.005), number of such publications accounting for 71.90% in 1980-1984 down to 26.48% in 1999-2001. Number of randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials present distinct increasing trend, especially number of RCT increased from none in 1980-1984 to thirteen articles in 1995-1998. The proportion of laboratory research in all original articles have increased greatly and have exceeded that of Journal of Urology. Conclusions The clinical and scientific research level of urology have been elevating in our country, the constituent ratio of descriptive studies is decreasing and that of RCT and CCT is increasing. The constituent ratio of laboratory research has increased greatly and has exceeded that of similar foreign Journal in some years. Attention needs to be paid to this trend and mechanism of it should be further explored.
For the damage and loss of tissues and organs caused by urinary system diseases, the current clinical treatment methods have limitations. Tissue engineering provides a therapeutic method that can replace or regenerate damaged tissues and organs through the research of cells, biological scaffolds and biologically related molecules. As an emerging manufacturing technology, three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technology can accurately control the biological materials carrying cells, which further promotes the development of tissue engineering. This article reviews the research progress and application of 3D bioprinting technology in tissue engineering of kidney, ureter, bladder, and urethra. Finally, the main current challenges and future prospects are discussed.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the scientificity, transparency and applicability of the Chinese consensuses on urological diseases published in 2021. MethodsPubMed, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data databases and related websites were electronically searched to collect Chinese consensuses on urological diseases from January 1 to December 31, 2021. Each consensus was scored with the scientific, transparent, and applicable rating (STAR) tools, and analyzed by using descriptive methods. ResultsA total of 28 Chinese consensuses were included. The STAR scores ranged from 9.9 to 32.3 with a mean of 17.3±6.3. The included consensus had a high score ratio in the items such as listing participants and institutions, providing identifiable recommendations, explaining the precautions for implementation of recommendations, having corresponding references for recommendations, and reporting future research directions. However, only 14.3% reported the methodology of consensus formation, and the record of consensus process and consideration of patient preferences, values and costs were not noted. No consensus reported responsibilities of panel specialists in the method section or included experts in the field of guideline methodology or evidence-based medicine. No consensus reported detailed information in managing conflicts of interest. Few reported no affection by funding. No consensus reported methods for collecting and selecting clinical questions, or evaluating, summarizing and grading evidence. Research gaps were not reported in a clear or standardized way. ConclusionAs a medical guidance document, expert consensus still plays an important role now in China. The quality of consensus on urological diseases can be further improved in methods of consensus formation, working groups, conflicts of interest, funding, accessibility, clinical questions, retrieval and evaluation of evidence, research gap, etc.