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

[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] <RCT-CONSORT / cohort-STROBE / review-PRISMA / diagnostic-STARD>
[Method/evidence] <power, endpoint validity, comparator, complication reporting, registration>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / registration / checklist / complication reporting / ethics / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>