Literature DB >> 11306229

Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.

R P Harris1, M Helfand, S H Woolf, K N Lohr, C D Mulrow, S M Teutsch, D Atkins.   

Abstract

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF/Task Force) represents one of several efforts to take a more evidence-based approach to the development of clinical practice guidelines. As methods have matured for assembling and reviewing evidence and for translating evidence into guidelines, so too have the methods of the USPSTF. This paper summarizes the current methods of the third USPSTF, supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and two of the AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs). The Task Force limits the topics it reviews to those conditions that cause a large burden of suffering to society and that also have available a potentially effective preventive service. It focuses its reviews on the questions and evidence most critical to making a recommendation. It uses analytic frameworks to specify the linkages and key questions connecting the preventive service with health outcomes. These linkages, together with explicit inclusion criteria, guide the literature searches for admissible evidence. Once assembled, admissible evidence is reviewed at three strata: (1) the individual study, (2) the body of evidence concerning a single linkage in the analytic framework, and (3) the body of evidence concerning the entire preventive service. For each stratum, the Task Force uses explicit criteria as general guidelines to assign one of three grades of evidence: good, fair, or poor. Good or fair quality evidence for the entire preventive service must include studies of sufficient design and quality to provide an unbroken chain of evidence-supported linkages, generalizable to the general primary care population, that connect the preventive service with health outcomes. Poor evidence contains a formidable break in the evidence chain such that the connection between the preventive service and health outcomes is uncertain. For services supported by overall good or fair evidence, the Task Force uses outcomes tables to help categorize the magnitude of benefits, harms, and net benefit from implementation of the preventive service into one of four categories: substantial, moderate, small, or zero/negative. The Task Force uses its assessment of the evidence and magnitude of net benefit to make a recommendation, coded as a letter: from A (strongly recommended) to D (recommend against). It gives an I recommendation in situations in which the evidence is insufficient to determine net benefit. The third Task Force and the EPCs will continue to examine a variety of methodologic issues and document work group progress in future communications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11306229     DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00261-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  339 in total

Review 1.  Updated report on comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and direct renin inhibitors for patients with essential hypertension: much more data, little new information.

Authors:  Benjamin J Powers; Remy R Coeytaux; Rowena J Dolor; Vic Hasselblad; Uptal D Patel; William S Yancy; Rebecca N Gray; R Julian Irvine; Amy S Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids.

Authors:  Annette M O'Connor; France Légaré; Dawn Stacey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

Review 3.  The long-term health outcomes of childhood abuse. An overview and a call to action.

Authors:  Kristen W Springer; Jennifer Sheridan; Daphne Kuo; Molly Carnes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-08-05       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-19

Review 6.  Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section.

Authors:  Jeanne-Marie Guise; Marian S McDonagh; Patricia Osterweil; Peggy Nygren; Benjamin K S Chan; Mark Helfand
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-03

7.  Screening for syphilis infection: recommendation statement.

Authors:  Ned Calonge
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Interventions to promote breast-feeding: applying the evidence in clinical practice.

Authors:  Valerie A Palda; Jeanne-Marie Guise; C Nadine Wathen
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-03-16       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Population-based screening for CKD.

Authors:  Neil R Powe; L Ebony Boulware
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 8.860

Review 10.  Hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors and osteoporosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Christos Hatzigeorgiou; Jeffrey L Jackson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.