Comparative effectiveness in urology: a state of the art review utilizing a systematic approach

Purpose of review Comparative effectiveness research plays a vital role in healthcare delivery by guiding evidence-based practices. We performed a state-of-the-art review of comparative effectiveness research in the urology literature for 2016, utilizing a systematic approach. Seven high-impact papers are reviewed in detail. Recent findings Across the breadth of urology, there were several important studies in comparative effectiveness research, of which we will highlight two randomized controlled trials and five observational trials: radiotherapy, prostatectomy, and active monitoring have equivalent mortality outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer; the ideal modality of patient education is yet to be determined, and written education has minimal effect on patient perception of prostate specific antigen screening; robotic prostatectomy is associated with higher perioperative complication rates on a population basis; racial disparities exist in incontinence rates after treatment for localized prostate cancer, but not in irritative, bowel, or sexual function; androgen deprivation therapy is associated with higher fracture, peripheral artery disease, and cardiac-related complications than bilateral orchiectomy; robotic and open cystectomy offer comparable cancer-specific mortality and perioperative outcomes; and bonuses for low-cost hospitals can inadvertently reward low-quality hospitals. Summary There have been major advancements in comparative effectiveness research in urology in 2016.