<b><i>Objective:</i></b> To critically appraise the methodological rigour of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) vis-à-vis BPH surgery as used by specialist research associations in the US, Europe and UK, and to compare whether the guidelines cover all or only some of the available treatments. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The current guidelines issued by the EUA, AUA and NICE associations have been analyzed by 4 appraisers using the AGREE-II instrument. We also compared the recommendations given in the guidelines for surgical and minimally invasive treatment to find out which of these CPGs include most of the available treatment options. <b><i>Results:</i></b> According to the AGREE II tool, the median scores of domains were: domain 1 scope and purpose 66.7%, domain 2 stakeholder involvement 50.0%, domain 3 rigor of development 65.1%, domain 4 clarity of presentation 80.6%, domain 5 applicability 33.3%, domain 6 editorial independence 72.9%. The overall assessment according to AGREE II is 83.3%. The NICE guideline scored highest on 5 out of 6 domains and the highest overall assessment score (91.6%). The EAU guideline scored lowest on 4 out of 6 domains and has the lowest overall assessment score (79.1%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The analyzed CPGs comprehensively highlight the minimally invasive and surgical treatment options for BPH. According to the AGREE II tool, the domains for clarity of presentation and editorial independence received the highest scores. The stakeholder involvement and applicability domains were ranked as the lowest. Improving the CPG in these domains may help to improve the clinical utility and applicability of CPGs.
Erratum to “Minimally Invasive Treatment of the Thoracic Spine Disease: Completely Percutaneous and Hybrid Approaches”