Publishing at PUBLISSO
Your chapter will be published at the PUBLISSO platform (https://books.publisso.de).
Information for corresponding authors
It is necessary for all corresponding authors to register at PUBLISSO.
To register at PUBLISSO please click the following link: http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/register
After registration, please complete your user profile. Information from your user profile will appear in the published chapter and the authors board of the book. If you are displayed in the authors board, you can be contacted by readers and other professionals. You can also contact other authors of the book for exchange and to build a network.
(If you do not want to be displayed in the authors board, but stay registered, you can disable this feature in your profile settings. In this case, your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter only.)
We kindly ask you to provide the co-authors email addresses in the manuscript so that we can contact them in case of queries.
Information for co-authors
After publication of your chapter, your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter.
If you also want to be displayed in the authors board of the book, we kindly ask you to register at PUBLISSO. If you are displayed in the authors board, you can be contacted by readers and other professionals. You can also contact other authors of the book for exchange and to build a network.
To register at PUBLISSO please click the following link: http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/register
If you do not want to be displayed in the authors board of the book, you do not have to register. Your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter only.
Support
If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to contact the PUBLISSO editorial office:
E-Mail: livingbooks@zbmed.de
Phone: +49 221 478-7093
General
The textbook will be structured in sections with two co-chairs each. Each section will start with an introductory chapter written by the two respective co-chairs presented like an editorial commentary in regard to the following chapters (see proposed contents of the book). The two co-chairs of each section will also peer review all chapters in their section and stimulate a consensus discussion within their section together with the authors and the main editors if needed.
Chapters
Each chapter should reflect the background to the topic and highlight all of the critical evidence relating to the subject. The intention is to provide an up to date, concise synthesis of the literature on that topic, and for clinical topics also recommendations based on levels of evidence for contemporary clinical practice, as well as suggested research recommendations.
Manuscript
Each manuscript should have up to approximately 3,000 words (excluding abstract, tables/figures and references). The abstract should count about 300 words.
Structure
The outline of each chapter should be structured as follows (similar as in the edition 2010, which can be downloaded for free: http://www.icud.info/urogenitalinfections.html):
- Abstract
- Summary of recommendations*/key notes*
(*which ever term is more appropriate) - Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Further research
- Conclusions
- Acknowledgement
- Conflict of interest of each author
- References
Citation style
As a citation style, the Vancouver style is preferred.
Please mark your references in the text with square brackets ([1], [2], ...).
Summary of recommendations
We would like to have the Summary of recommendations at the beginning after the abstract (as in the edition 2010). However, we do not expect as in the edition 2010, that each recommendation is also specified according to Level of Evidence and Grade of Recommendation, because such a claim would not only need a systematic literature search (see below), but also a structured discussion in a defined group of experts.
Systematic literature search
A systematic literature search should be performed, at least of PUBMED/MEDLINE but ideally of several relevant databases in addition (like Cochrane CENTRAL) to find recent, high quality systematic reviews and/or primary research studies. It is not expected to perform for all chapters a de novo systematic review, if such reviews are already published recently, but it still may be indicated for some items. For questions relating therapy, it should be focused on evidence from (systematic reviews of) randomized controlled trials if available.
The method of the systematic literature search needs to be fully described in the section “Methods”, e.g.:
“A systematic literature search was performed for the last ... (usually 10) years in MEDLINE, Cochrane etc. with the following key words ... and the following limitations: e.g. UTI, age (adult?), ... clinical studies ... English ... abstract available ... only peer reviewed ...
A total of ... publications were identified, which were screened by title and abstract ... After exclusion of duplicates ... a total of ... were included into the review (analysis), supplemented by citations or known to the authors ... ”.
Clinical topics
Clinical topics should be focused on the importance to clinical practice according to the up to date scientific knowledge as presented in the literature. It should relate to questions/complaints/symptoms of patient/population concerning definition, diagnosis, therapy/prevention, intervention, and outcome in comparison, if different approaches are feasible. Please choose patient-important outcomes and focus on those, which you deem critical for decision-making.
Level of evidence and grade of recommendations
Any recommendation should be based on the level of evidence and the grade of recommendation. For this purpose the following system, modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine should be used (EAU guidelines 2015):
Level of evidence (LE)
| Level | Type of evidence |
| 1a | Evidence obtained from meta-analysis of randomised trials |
| 1b | Evidence obtained from at least one randomised trial |
| 2a | Evidence obtained from one well-designed controlled study without randomization |
| 2b | Evidence obtained from at least one other type of well-designed quasi-experimental study |
| 3 | Evidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies and case reports. |
| 4 | Evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions or clinical experience of respected authorities. |
Grade of Recommendations (GoR)
| Grade | Nature of recommendations |
| A | Based on clinical studies of good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendations and including at least one randomised trial |
| B | Based on well-conducted clinical studies, but without randomised clinical trials |
| C | Made despite the absence of directly applicable clinical studies of good quality |
Comments (EAU guidelines 2015)
The aim of assigning a LE and grading recommendations is to provide transparency between the underlying evidence and the recommendation given.
It should be noted that when recommendations are graded, the link between the level of evidence and grade of recommendation is not directly linear. Availability of randomized controlled trials may not necessarily translate into a grade “A” recommendation where there are methodological limitations or disparity in published results.
Alternatively, absence of high level evidence does not necessarily preclude a grade A recommendation, if there is overwhelming clinical experience and consensus. In addition, there may be exceptional situations where corroborating studies cannot be performed, perhaps for ethical or other reasons and in this case unequivocal recommendations are considered helpful for the reader. The quality of the underlying scientific evidence - although a very important factor – has to be balanced against benefits and burdens, values and preferences and costs when a grade is assigned.
Since the same rating system should be used in all chapters, for the sake of brevity the same sentence could be used in “Methods” for all manuscripts, because the rating system will be described in details in the Preface of the book:
“The studies were rated according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations graded according to a system used in the EAU guidelines modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine [1].”
References
[1] European Association of Urology. Guidelines. Methodology section. 2015 ed. Arnhem: European Association of Urology; 2015. p. 3. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-79754-80-9.
