On 2015 Jun 18, NephJC - Nephrology Journal Club commented:

This guideline document was discussed on June 9th and 10th 2015 in the open online nephrology journal club, #NephJC, on twitter.

Introductory comments are available at the NephJC website and blog. The discussion was very detailed, with more than 50 participants, including nephrologists, urologists and residents. Notable were nephrolithiasis experts, David Goldfarb and John Asplin.

A transcript and a curated (i.e. Storified) version of the tweetchat are available at the NephJC website.

The highlights of the tweetchat were:

• Though the ACP follows stringent guideline development process, the absence of high quality data made the end result not quite useful for practical use, especially when compared to other competing publications, such as from the American Urological Association and the European Association of Urology. There was also concern that these guidelines may be (mis)used by third party payers to deny coverage for tests not endorsed in these guidelines.

• From a physiological rationale, there was near unanimity that testing for stone composition is essential, especially in recurrent stone-formers. There was concern that the guideline developers were interpreting absence of evidence of benefit as evidence of absence of benefit.

• Additional online comments that were thought to provide useful context to the discussion, written by Drs Coe, Goldfarb and Topf, are available here, here, here and here.

Interested individuals can track and join in the conversation by following @NephJC or #NephJC, or visit the webpage at NephJC.com.

On 2015 Jun 18, NephJC - Nephrology Journal Club commented:

This guideline document was discussed on June 9th and 10th 2015 in the open online nephrology journal club, #NephJC, on twitter.

Introductory comments are available at the NephJC website and blog. The discussion was very detailed, with more than 50 participants, including nephrologists, urologists and residents. Notable were nephrolithiasis experts, David Goldfarb and John Asplin.

A transcript and a curated (i.e. Storified) version of the tweetchat are available at the NephJC website.

The highlights of the tweetchat were:

• Though the ACP follows stringent guideline development process, the absence of high quality data made the end result not quite useful for practical use, especially when compared to other competing publications, such as from the American Urological Association and the European Association of Urology. There was also concern that these guidelines may be (mis)used by third party payers to deny coverage for tests not endorsed in these guidelines.

• From a physiological rationale, there was near unanimity that testing for stone composition is essential, especially in recurrent stone-formers. There was concern that the guideline developers were interpreting absence of evidence of benefit as evidence of absence of benefit.

• Additional online comments that were thought to provide useful context to the discussion, written by Drs Coe, Goldfarb and Topf, are available here, here, here and here.

Interested individuals can track and join in the conversation by following @NephJC or #NephJC, or visit the webpage at NephJC.com.