If you would like your organisation to be considered as a stakeholder in this process, please fill out the survey at,
The Cochrane Urology Review Group (CURG) currently holds a portfolio of protocols and reviews dedicated to the diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of:
· Benign and malignant prostate conditions, including benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate cancer, and prostatitis.
· Male sexual dysfunction, including erectile dysfunction, undescended testes, and Peyronie's disease.
· Benign and malignant renal conditions, including cancer and stones.
· Urologic cancers, including bladder, testicular, penile, and urethral.
The CURG is based in the University of Minneapolis since 2013 and is staffed with a Coordinating Editor, a Managing Editor, and a group of Contact Editors and Information Specialists who provide support to this group. In January 2020, the Korean Satellite Group was launched, and it is hosted at Yonsei University in Wonju.
The CURG recognises that the priority setting of review topics is important to ensure systematic reviews focus on the questions of most importance to end-users. The CURG currently has an informal process in place for prioritising systematic review topics involving frequent contact with key stakeholders and the Group’s Editorial Board.
The CURG now plans to conduct a formal priority setting exercise. Due to the broad scope of the Group’s review portfolio, priority setting activities will focus on one condition at a time, prioritizing initially those conditions with the highest burden of disease. The first part of this priority setting effort will focus on benign conditions of the prostate.
The purpose of this project is to generate a list of at least two priority topics of interest to our stakeholders, within the scope of benign conditions of the prostate. Priority setting usually yields a higher number of topics, however we chose to reduce the output of this exercise, considering that we are focusing on a subset of our portfolio.
This implies an update and prioritization of our existing portfolio, and a consideration of our existing gaps in our review questions. We understand that editorial resources will be prioritized to those topics relevant to stakeholders for which there are no up-to-date high-quality reviews of the current available evidence.
We have drafted a Priority Setting Plan that aims to follow Scenario 2 in the Cochrane Priority Setting Guidance Note.