Paying for Performance to Improve the Delivery and Uptake of Family Planning in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Paying for performance is a strategy to meet the unmet need for family planning in low and middle income countries; however, rigorous evidence on effectiveness is lacking. Scientific databases and grey literature were searched from 1994 to May 2016. Thirteen studies were included. Payments were linked to units of targeted services, usually modified by quality indicators. Ancillary components and payment indicators differed between studies. Results were mixed for family planning outcome measures. Paying for performance was associated with improved modern family planning use in one study, and increased user and coverage rates in two more. Paying for performance with conditional cash transfers increased family planning use in another. One study found increased use in the upper wealth group only. However, eight studies reported no impact on modern family planning use or prevalence. Secondary outcomes of equity, financial risk protection, satisfaction, quality, and service organization were mixed. Available evidence is inconclusive and limited by the scarcity of studies and by variation in intervention, study design, and outcome measures. Further studies are warranted

The Invisibility of Children in Data Systems

In order to assess the state of health of Europe’s children, or to appraise the systems and models of healthcare delivery, data about children are essential, with as much precision and accuracy as possible by small group characteristic. Unfortunately, the experience of the Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project and its scientists shows that this ideal is seldom met, and thus the accuracy of appraisal or planning work is compromised. In the project, we explored the data collected on children by a number of databases used in Europe and globally, to find that although the four quinquennial age bands are common, it is impossible to represent children aged 0–17 years as a legally defined group in statistical analysis. Adolescents, in particular, are the most invisible age group despite this being a time of life when they are rapidly changing and facing increasing challenges. In terms of measurement and monitoring, there is little progress from work of nearly two decades ago that recommended an information system, and no focus on the creation of a policy and ethical framework to allow collaborative analysis of the rich anonymised databases that hold real-world people-based data. In respect of data systems and surveillance, nearly all systems in European society pay lip service to the importance of children, but do not accommodate them in a practical and statistical sense

The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review

Context: There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa. Evidence acquisition: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Evidence synthesis: Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery. Conclusions: Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials. Patient summary: Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread

Risks and Benefits of Adjuvant Radiotherapy After Inguinal Lymphadenectomy in Node-positive Penile Cancer : A Systematic Review by the European Association of Urology Penile Cancer Guidelines Panel

Richard Robinson certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Dr. Thomas Lam is a company consultant for and has received company speaker honoraria from Pfizer, GSK, Astellas, and Ipsen. Mr. Suks S. Minhas receives company speaker honorarium for Lilly and has received a fellowship/medical travel grant from American Medical systems Fellowship. Dr. Andrea Necchi is a company consultant for and has received company speaker honoraria from Bayer and Astra Zeneca, and has received a fellowship/medical travel grant from Pierre Fabre; he has been involved with trial participation for Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, BMS, and Novartis, as well as receiving grants/research supports from GlaxoSmithKline and Millenium. Oliver Hakenberg, Nick Watkin, Richard Robinson, Yuhong Yuan, Ekelechi MacPepple, Temitope E. Adewuyi, Steven MacLennan, Alberto Coscione, and Eva M. Compérat have nothing to declare.Peer reviewedPostprin