--- name: european-urology description: Use when targeting European Urology or deciding whether a urology clinical/surgical study fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the high-impact clinical-and-surgical-outcomes evidence bar, reporting-guideline and registration requirements, EAU/Elsevier house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. Venue-fit aid only, not clinical advice. --- # European Urology (european-urology) ## Journal positioning European Urology is the flagship journal of the European Association of Urology (EAU), publishing high-impact clinical and surgical research across the breadth of urology — uro-oncology (prostate, bladder, kidney, testis, upper-tract), functional and reconstructive urology, endourology and stone disease, andrology, transplantation, and surgical technique and outcomes. It serves academic urologists and the EAU clinical-guideline community and expects rigorous, practice-relevant work with meaningful clinical or oncologic endpoints and, for surgical studies, robust outcome and complication reporting; small single-center case series, retrospective slices without a comparator, and technique notes without outcome data are a weak fit. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** aid; it is not clinical or regulatory advice and does not replace the journal's current instructions for authors. Before submitting, re-check the live European Urology author instructions. ## When to trigger - The author names European Urology for a uro-oncology, functional-urology, endourology, or surgical-outcomes study and wants a fit/framing check. - A urology study must be re-framed around a high-impact clinical or oncologic question with rigorous outcome reporting for an EAU readership. - The author is choosing between European Urology, a general-medicine or oncology journal, and a lower-tier urology venue. - The author needs the journal's reporting-guideline, registration, and desk-reject expectations for clinical and surgical urology research. ## Scope & topic fit - Uro-oncology: prostate, bladder, renal, upper-tract, and testicular cancer — screening, staging, systemic and surgical therapy, and survival/oncologic outcomes. - Surgical and robotic/minimally invasive technique with comparative outcome and complication data. - Functional and reconstructive urology, neuro-urology, incontinence, and benign prostatic obstruction with patient-centered endpoints. - Endourology and stone disease, including device/technology evaluation with outcomes. - Diagnostic, biomarker, and imaging (e.g., MRI/PSMA-PET pathways) studies with clinically meaningful endpoints and a reference standard. - Comparative-effectiveness, registry, and systematic-review/meta-analysis work answering a focused urology question. ## Method & evidence bar - Clinical and surgical studies must be adequately powered with prespecified, patient-centered or oncologic endpoints; surgical outcomes require standardized complication reporting (e.g., Clavien-Dindo) and adequate follow-up. - The applicable reporting guideline must be followed and its checklist supplied: CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, STARD for diagnostic accuracy. - Interventional trials require prospective registration; the registration number and protocol/statistical-analysis plan are expected. - Surgical comparative studies need an appropriate comparator and adjustment for confounding, case-mix, and surgeon/center learning-curve effects; single-arm series rarely suffice. - Diagnostic, biomarker, and imaging-pathway claims require an independent validation cohort and an accepted reference standard (e.g., histopathology). - Observational and registry analyses must address confounding, selection, and competing risks; causal language must match the design. ## Structure & house style - EAU/Elsevier format with a structured abstract and, where required, a concise "take-home message" / patient-summary element; re-check current article types and limits on the live guide. - The introduction frames a focused urology question and its clinical importance; the discussion states the practice or guideline implication plainly and aligns with current EAU guideline terminology. - Tables/figures follow journal statistical-reporting standards; a CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA flow diagram and standardized complication tables are expected where applicable. - Supplements carry the protocol, full statistical methods, surgical-technique detail, and additional analyses. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the ICMJE/EQUATOR and EAU anchors, then cite the current European Urology page you checked. - Search the live site for "European Urology guide for authors" and follow the current EAU/Elsevier version. - Re-check article types, word/reference/figure limits, structured-abstract and take-home-message format, and statistical-reporting requirements. - Confirm trial registration, the reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/STARD), data-sharing statement, protocol/SAP submission, and standardized complication reporting for surgical studies. - Re-check IRB/ethics and consent, ICMJE authorship and conflict-of-interest disclosure, funding, and AI-use disclosure. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] The study answers a focused, high-impact urology question with a clear clinical/oncologic implication. - [ ] Endpoints are prespecified and patient-centered/oncologic; surgical studies report standardized complications and adequate follow-up. - [ ] The correct reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/STARD) is completed and attached. - [ ] Trials are prospectively registered with the number in the manuscript; protocol/SAP provided. - [ ] Comparative studies include an appropriate comparator with confounding/case-mix/learning-curve adjustment. - [ ] IRB/consent, ICMJE disclosures, and a data-sharing statement are prepared; EAU guideline terminology is used. ## Common desk-reject triggers - Small single-center case series or single-arm retrospective slices with no comparator and limited generalizability. - Surgical technique notes without standardized complication reporting or adequate follow-up. - Diagnostic/biomarker/imaging studies without an independent validation cohort or histopathologic reference standard. - Missing trial registration, protocol, or the required reporting checklist. - Observational analyses with inadequate confounding/case-mix handling or overstated causal claims. - Narrow local-interest topic better served by a general or lower-tier urology venue. ## Re-routing decision - Uro-oncology dominated by a systemic-oncology or medical-oncology endpoint → `jama-oncology` / `annals-of-oncology`. - Practice-changing, broadly significant trial → general medicine (`jama` / NEJM / The Lancet in the natural-science bundle). - Urologic imaging where the imaging method dominates → `radiology`. - Surgical-outcomes focus outside urology's core readership → `jama-surgery`. - Pure basic urologic/oncologic cell or molecular mechanism with no clinical translation → a basic-science venue in the natural-science bundle. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] European Urology (EAU) [Urology tags] <2–3 closest topics, e.g. prostate-cancer trial, robotic outcomes, stone disease> [Study design / reporting guideline] [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```