Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages 290-300 (February 2018) Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology  Thomas Knoll, Muhammad Imran Omar, Steven Maclennan, Virginia Hernández, Steven Canfield, Yuhong Yuan, Max Bruins, Lorenzo Marconi, Hein Van Poppel, James N’Dow, Richard Sylvester  European Urology  Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages 290-300 (February 2018) DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016 Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 1 The process of conducting systematic review. GRADE=Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. European Urology 2018 73, 290-300DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 2 Example of search strategy. exp=“exploded” the subject heading. European Urology 2018 73, 290-300DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 3 Example Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses flowchart [21]. European Urology 2018 73, 290-300DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 4 A decision flow diagram when to meta-analyse data or to use narrative synthesis. NRS=nonrandomised studies; RCT=randomised controlled trials; RoB=risk of bias. European Urology 2018 73, 290-300DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 5 The process of assessing the quality of evidence with GRADE approach. EtD=Evidence to Decision; GRADE=Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; HTA=Health technology assessment; RCT=randomised controlled trials; SoF=Summary of Findings. European Urology 2018 73, 290-300DOI: (10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions