Kimberly M Lovett1, Timothy K Mackey, Bryan A Liang. 1. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA. klovett@ucsd.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Unsupervised online direct-to-consumer (DTC) access to medical services has rapidly expanded to medical screening tests, which have not been critically evaluated for their evidence basis. The objective of this study is to identify the scope of online-advertised DTC screening tests, outline the evidence for use of available DTC testing and suggest regulatory reform to address the relevant issues. METHODS: An observational study of website advertisements, testing services and counselling/follow-up services for DTC testing was conducted. Data were collected from websites between 4 April and 1 June 2011. Each website was assessed for tests offered, advertised indications and availability of counselling/follow-up services. Advertised testing indications were compared with US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and/or specialty guidelines and categorized as Supported, Against, Insufficient Evidence or No Guidance. RESULTS: Of 20 companies identified as offering DTC screening tests, 95% (19/20) do not clearly offer pretest counselling, post-test counselling and/or test follow-up. One hundred and twenty-seven different tests were identified. Only 19/127 (15%) could be Supported for screening in a target group selected for testing; 38/127 (30%) were given recommendations to avoid use in specific target group(s) selected for testing ('Against recommendations'); 29/127 (23%) had Insufficient Evidence of value, and for 64/127 (50%) No Guidance could be given. Only 4/127 (3%) tests were Supported for general screening use. CONCLUSIONS: Virtually all identified medical tests advertised and offered DTC are not recommended for use in screening by evidence-based guidelines. Limited oversight may lead to inaccurate self-diagnosis, treatment and wasted health resources.
OBJECTIVES: Unsupervised online direct-to-consumer (DTC) access to medical services has rapidly expanded to medical screening tests, which have not been critically evaluated for their evidence basis. The objective of this study is to identify the scope of online-advertised DTC screening tests, outline the evidence for use of available DTC testing and suggest regulatory reform to address the relevant issues. METHODS: An observational study of website advertisements, testing services and counselling/follow-up services for DTC testing was conducted. Data were collected from websites between 4 April and 1 June 2011. Each website was assessed for tests offered, advertised indications and availability of counselling/follow-up services. Advertised testing indications were compared with US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and/or specialty guidelines and categorized as Supported, Against, Insufficient Evidence or No Guidance. RESULTS: Of 20 companies identified as offering DTC screening tests, 95% (19/20) do not clearly offer pretest counselling, post-test counselling and/or test follow-up. One hundred and twenty-seven different tests were identified. Only 19/127 (15%) could be Supported for screening in a target group selected for testing; 38/127 (30%) were given recommendations to avoid use in specific target group(s) selected for testing ('Against recommendations'); 29/127 (23%) had Insufficient Evidence of value, and for 64/127 (50%) No Guidance could be given. Only 4/127 (3%) tests were Supported for general screening use. CONCLUSIONS: Virtually all identified medical tests advertised and offered DTC are not recommended for use in screening by evidence-based guidelines. Limited oversight may lead to inaccurate self-diagnosis, treatment and wasted health resources.
Authors: Julie M Robillard; Judy Illes; Marcel Arcand; B Lynn Beattie; Sherri Hayden; Peter Lawrence; Joanna McGrenere; Peter B Reiner; Dana Wittenberg; Claudia Jacova Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2015-07-02
Authors: Rita Bauer; Tasha Glenn; Sergio Strejilevich; Jörn Conell; Martin Alda; Raffaella Ardau; Bernhard T Baune; Michael Berk; Yuly Bersudsky; Amy Bilderbeck; Alberto Bocchetta; Angela M Paredes Castro; Eric Y W Cheung; Caterina Chillotti; Sabine Choppin; Alessandro Cuomo; Maria Del Zompo; Rodrigo Dias; Seetal Dodd; Anne Duffy; Bruno Etain; Andrea Fagiolini; Miryam Fernández Hernandez; Julie Garnham; John Geddes; Jonas Gildebro; Michael J Gitlin; Ana Gonzalez-Pinto; Guy M Goodwin; Paul Grof; Hirohiko Harima; Stefanie Hassel; Chantal Henry; Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei; Anne Hvenegaard Lund; Vaisnvy Kapur; Girish Kunigiri; Beny Lafer; Erik R Larsen; Ute Lewitzka; Rasmus W Licht; Blazej Misiak; Patryk Piotrowski; Ângela Miranda-Scippa; Scott Monteith; Rodrigo Munoz; Takako Nakanotani; René E Nielsen; Claire O'Donovan; Yasushi Okamura; Yamima Osher; Andreas Reif; Philipp Ritter; Janusz K Rybakowski; Kemal Sagduyu; Brett Sawchuk; Elon Schwartz; Claire Slaney; Ahmad H Sulaiman; Kirsi Suominen; Aleksandra Suwalska; Peter Tam; Yoshitaka Tatebayashi; Leonardo Tondo; Julia Veeh; Eduard Vieta; Maj Vinberg; Biju Viswanath; Mark Zetin; Peter C Whybrow; Michael Bauer Journal: Int J Bipolar Disord Date: 2018-09-04