BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) in surgical specialties was demonstrated to diminish decisional regret, decisional anxiety and decisional conflict. Urolithiasis guidelines do not explicit patient preference to choose treatment. The aim of this review article was to perform a systematic evaluation of published evidence regarding SDM in urinary stone treatment.
METHODS: A systematic review in accordance PRISMA checklist was conducted using the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated stone treatment preferences. Reviews, editorials, case reports and video abstracts were excluded. ROBUST checklist was used to assess quality of the studies.
RESULTS: 188 articles were obtained. After applying the predefined selection criteria, seven articles were included for final analysis. Six out of seven studies were questionnaires that propose clinical scenarios and treatment alternatives. The last study was a patient preference trial. A general trend among included studies showed a patient preference towards the least invasive option (SWL over URS). The main reasons to choose one treatment over the other were stone-free rates, risk of complications and invasiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an overview of the patients\' preferences towards stone treatment in small- and medium-sized stones. There was a clear preference towards the least invasive management strategy. The main reason was less invasiveness. This is opposed to the global trends of performing more ureteroscopies and less SWL. Physicians played a pivotal role in counselling patients. SDM should be encouraged and improved. The main limitation of this study is the characteristics of the included studies.

To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS).
A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement.
The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories.
This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS - The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.