Under-representation of Diversity on American Urological Association and European Association of Urology Guideline Panels.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the panel composition of the 2 most important guideline developers in urology as equity and acceptability, important domains in clinical guideline development, require broad stakeholder representation.

METHODS

Following a predefined protocol, we identified all current AUA and EAU guideline documents. Two authors independently abstracted data including guideline topic, number and roles of panel members, voting status, and academic rank. We determined panel member's gender (woman, man, or nonbinary) and racialization (White or non-White) status based on name, internet picture, pronouns used, bios available, and gender listed on their profile.

RESULTS

We identified 31 AUA and 20 EAU guidelines for inclusion. Median panel size was 19 (interquartile range [IQR]: 17; 21) with 12 (IQR: 10; 14) voting members. The average composition of voting panels was predominantly male (81.8%) and White (86.8%). Eleven guideline panels (21.6%) did not include any women, and 9 (17.6%) panels had no representation of individuals from non-White groups. While gender distribution was similar among guidelines of the 2 organizations, the AUA included more voting members from non-White groups (14.3% vs 8.0%; P = .010). Analysis of the AUA panel composition over time revealed stable proportions of female and non-White individuals.

CONCLUSION

Both AUA and EAU guidelines exhibit insufficient representation of females and non-White individuals, with no evident improvement observed over time. Implementing more transparent processes that advocate for diverse panel representation may enhance the incorporation of stakeholder values and preferences, thereby improving the dissemination and adoption of guidelines.