Objective: To estimate the degree of scatter of randomised trials and systematic reviews relevant to urology over the past decade, and to assess how many journals would need to be consulted for urologists to stay up to date with current evidence.

Design: Cross-sectional analysis. Data Source: PubMed and Cochrane database search for randomised trials and systematic reviews published between 2015 and 2025, mapped to the RACS Urology syllabus using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Study Selection: Randomised trials and systematic reviews relating to ten core areas of urology: trauma, oncology, male urinary tract function, female urinary tract function, infection and inflammation, upper urinary tract function, urinary stone disease, andrology, paediatric urology, and uroradiology imaging. Main Outcome Measures: The number of journals required to locate all relevant randomised trials and systematic reviews, and the number needed to identify 50% of each (J50 value). Secondary outcomes include overlap between journals publishing trials versus reviews, and implications for clinical currency and access.

Results (preliminary): Initial findings suggest that randomised trials and systematic reviews in urology are widely scattered across a large number of journals, with substantial variation across subspecialties. A significant proportion of relevant literature is published outside of core urology journals, and considerable divergence exists between journals publishing trials and those publishing reviews. The J50 values vary between subspecialties, indicating differing levels of centralisation.

Conclusions: Urologists must track a wide range of journals to remain current with relevant randomised trials and systematic reviews, presenting practical barriers such as time and cost of journal access. These findings may inform journal subscription strategies, encourage publishers to consider more centralised dissemination, and support the development of streamlined platforms to curate high-quality urological evidence.