Introduction: Equity and acceptability are important domains when it comes to clinical guideline development, requiring broad stakeholder representation. We conducted this study to assess the panel composition on the two most important guideline developers in urology. Methods: Based on a predefined protocol we identified all current AUA and EAU guideline documents from the organizations’ respective websites. Two members of the research team independently and in duplicate abstracted information on the guideline topic, number of panel members (voting and non-voting), support staff and consultants. We determined the panel members’ likely gender (woman, man, or non-binary) and racialization (white [not racialized] or non-white [racialized]) based on name, internet picture, pronouns used, bios available, and gender listed on their profile. Racialization data was further validated using the Ethnicity Estimator algorithm. Results: We included 31 AUA and 20 EAU guidelines in this study. The median panel size was 19 (interquartile range [IQR]: 17; 21), including a median of 12 (IQR: 10; 14) voting and 7 (IQR: 4; 8) non-voting members. Panel composition of voting members was largely male (median: 83.3%; IQR: 72.7%; 92.9%) and white (median: 88.2%; IQR: 83.3%; 92.9%). About one in five guideline panels did not include a single female (11; 21.6%) or racialized individual (10; 19.6%). Overall, only 11 of 617 (1.8%) voting members were racialized women. When comparing oncology and non-oncology related guidelines, female (26.4% versus 25.8%; p=0.129) and non-white representation (21.9% versus 28.4%; p=0.129) was similar. For AUA and EAU guideline panels, female representation was similar (26.1% versus 25.8%; p=0.946) whereas racialized individuals were more frequent on AUA guidelines (29.3% versus 20.9%; p=0.048). Conclusions: As in other arenas of urology (such as the general workforce and academic leadership), female and racialized individuals are underrepresented on guideline panels of the two major professional organizations. More transparency in the panel member selection process and intentional efforts to promote gender parity and diversity are needed. SOURCE OF Funding: Departmental
