Which developments in urology have you missed amongst all the COVID‐19 papers?

Abstract

With so much emphasis on COVID‐19 in the medical and lay press, some interesting publications, particularly on the fringes of urology, may have been overlooked. This article intends to cover some of these publications’ findings.

How much do second opinions improve men's health?

“…Only two cited medical expert involvements in the production. [18][19][20] There were similar findings in a search of YouTube for information on the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy. Eighty-seven per cent of 159 videos contained misinformation and none were scored as having good overall quality.…”

“…A major problem with ‘consulting Dr Google’ is in finding accurate information. Recent investigation, highlighted in a previous Trends article, 18 has found that all online videos on renal calculi authored by academic institutions were accurate and their quality was significantly better than those without academic input – 23% of the non‐academic videos contained unscientific or inaccurate material. Most worryingly, the non‐academic videos had more than double the number of viewer engagement responses.…”

“…Only one of the 31 apps had evidence‐based advice. Only two cited medical expert involvements in the production 18–20 …”

Managing information and infodemics for patients

“…A recent article in Trends in Urology and Men's Health pointed out that internet materials from non-academic sources on urological topics are unscientific and inaccurate. 15 Clinicians should be able to guide patients towards material relevant to their specific requirements.…”

“…The worst option is unguided search of the internet. A recent article in Trends in Urology and Men's Health pointed out that internet materials from non‐academic sources on urological topics are unscientific and inaccurate 15 …”