External Validation of the EAU Guidelines Bot for Urethral Stricture: Accuracy, Completeness, and Clarity Analysis
Authors:
- Pietro SpataforaPSPietro Spatafora
- Riccardo LombardoRiccardo Lombardo
- Manfredi Bruno SequiMSManfredi Bruno Sequi
- Marta SantioniMSMarta Santioni
- Eleonora RosatoEREleonora Rosato
- Matteo RomagnoliMatteo Romagnoli
- Sabrina De CillisSCSabrina De Cillis
- Enrico CheccucciEnrico Checcucci
- Daniele AmparoreDADaniele Amparore
- Mauro RagoneseMRMauro Ragonese
- Nazario FoschiNazario Foschi
- Valerio SantarelliVSValerio Santarelli
Open Access
- 21 April 2026
- journal article
- research article
- Published by MDPI AG in Société Internationale d’Urologie Journal
- Vol. 7 (2) , 30
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Recently the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines presented the EAU Guidelines bot to assist urologists in the reading of the guidelines; however, there is a lack of up-to-date external validation. The aim of our study is to assess the accuracy, completeness, and clarity of the guidelines bot in urethral strictures. Methods: A total of 117 questions based on the EAU urethral strictures guidelines recommendations were developed. Each question was input to the EAU guidelines bot and the response was assessed by two expert urologists to assess the accuracy, completeness, and clarity. Moreover, 10 simple clinical cases were input. A 5-point Likert scale was used as a score and, in case of discrepancies, a third urologist was queried. Accuracy, completeness and clarity were assessed per chapter and per grade of recommendation. All questions and answers were recorded in an Excel file. Results: Overall 117 questions were developed. In terms of accuracy, 111/117 (95%) were defined as accurate (scores 4–5), 4/117 (3%) presented a fair accuracy (score 3), and 2/117 (2%) were deemed not accurate. In terms of completeness, 93/117 (80%) were defined as complete (scores 4–5), 22/117 (19%) presented a fair completeness (score 3), and 2/117 (2%) were deemed not complete. Finally, in terms of clarity, 104/117 (89%) were defined as clear (scores 4–5), 13/117 (11%) presented a fair clarity (score 3), and 0/109 (0%) were deemed not clear. When comparing strong and weak recommendations, no differences were recorded. Overall the answers to simple clinical cases were in line with the guidelines with good accuracy, completeness and clarity scores. Conclusions: The EAU guidelines bot represents an accurate tool for urethral stenosis guidelines. Some fine-tuning is needed to improve readability and clarity.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Accuracy, readability, and understandability of EAU guidelines bot for testicular cancerInternational Urology and Nephrology, 2026
- Artificial intelligence may enhance the role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer focal therapyProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2025
- Can ChatGPT provide high-quality patient information on male lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostate enlargement?Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2024
- Accuracy, readability, and understandability of large language models for prostate cancer information to the publicProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2024
- Patients’ Trust in Artificial Intelligence–based Decision-making for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from a Prospective TrialEuropean Urology Focus, 2023
- Developers-Doctor-patients: the artificial intelligence’s trifectaProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2023
- Artificial intelligence applications in prostate cancerProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2023
- European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urethral Stricture Disease Part 3: Management of Strictures in Females and Transgender PatientsEuropean Urology Focus, 2022
- Artificial intelligence for target prostate biopsy outcomes prediction the potential application of fuzzy logicProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2021
- Artificial intelligence in functional urology: how it may shape the futureCurrent Opinion in Urology, 2021