Tanner J Caverly1, Rodney A Hayward2, Elyse Reamer2, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher2, Daniel Connochie2, Michele Heisler2, Angela Fagerlin2. 1. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, RAH, MH, AF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School (TJC, RAH, ER, BJZF, MH, AF), Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine (TJC, BJZF, DC, AF), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (BJZF), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. tcaverly@med.umich.edu. 2. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, RAH, MH, AF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School (TJC, RAH, ER, BJZF, MH, AF), Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine (TJC, BJZF, DC, AF), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (BJZF), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer prevention and screening guidelines are ideally suited to the task of providing high-quality benefit-harm information that informs clinical practice. We systematically examined how US guidelines present benefits and harms for recommended cancer prevention and screening interventions. METHODS: We included cancer screening and prevention recommendations from: 1) the United States Preventive Services Task Force, 2) the American Cancer Society, 3) the American College of Physicians, 4) the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and 5) other US guidelines within the National Guidelines Clearinghouse. Searches took place November 20, 2013, and January 1, 2014, and updates were reviewed through July 1, 2015. Two coders used an abstraction form to code information about benefits and harms presented anywhere within a guideline document, including appendices. The primary outcome was each recommendation's benefit-harm "comparability" rating, based on how benefits and harms were presented. Recommendations presenting absolute effects for both benefits and harms received a "comparable" rating. Other recommendations received an incomplete rating or an asymmetric rating based on prespecified criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-five recommendations for using interventions to prevent or detect breast, prostate, colon, cervical, and lung cancer were identified among 32 guidelines. Thirty point nine percent (n = 17) received a comparable rating, 14.5% (n = 8) received an incomplete rating, and 54.5% (n = 30) received an asymmetric rating. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty-nine percent of cancer prevention and screening recommendation statements either did not quantify benefits and harms or presented them in an asymmetric manner. Improved presentation of benefits and harms in guidelines would better ensure that clinicians and patients have access to the information required for making informed decisions. Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND:Cancer prevention and screening guidelines are ideally suited to the task of providing high-quality benefit-harm information that informs clinical practice. We systematically examined how US guidelines present benefits and harms for recommended cancer prevention and screening interventions. METHODS: We included cancer screening and prevention recommendations from: 1) the United States Preventive Services Task Force, 2) the American Cancer Society, 3) the American College of Physicians, 4) the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and 5) other US guidelines within the National Guidelines Clearinghouse. Searches took place November 20, 2013, and January 1, 2014, and updates were reviewed through July 1, 2015. Two coders used an abstraction form to code information about benefits and harms presented anywhere within a guideline document, including appendices. The primary outcome was each recommendation's benefit-harm "comparability" rating, based on how benefits and harms were presented. Recommendations presenting absolute effects for both benefits and harms received a "comparable" rating. Other recommendations received an incomplete rating or an asymmetric rating based on prespecified criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-five recommendations for using interventions to prevent or detect breast, prostate, colon, cervical, and lung cancer were identified among 32 guidelines. Thirty point nine percent (n = 17) received a comparable rating, 14.5% (n = 8) received an incomplete rating, and 54.5% (n = 30) received an asymmetric rating. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty-nine percent of cancer prevention and screening recommendation statements either did not quantify benefits and harms or presented them in an asymmetric manner. Improved presentation of benefits and harms in guidelines would better ensure that clinicians and patients have access to the information required for making informed decisions. Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: George F Sawaya; Janelle Guirguis-Blake; Michael LeFevre; Russell Harris; Diana Petitti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-12-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Laura B Vater; Julie M Donohue; Robert Arnold; Douglas B White; Edward Chu; Yael Schenker Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Nancy Santesso; Mark Helfand; Gunn Vist; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Susan Norris; Joerg Meerpohl; Ben Djulbegovic; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Piet N Post; Jason W Busse; Paul Glasziou; Robin Christensen; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Natalie Joseph-Williams; Robert Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Stephanie Sivell; Dawn Stacey; Annette O'Connor; Robert J Volk; Adrian Edwards; Carol Bennett; Michael Pignone; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia; Christine M Gunn Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2021-01-17
Authors: Laura J James; Germaine Wong; Jonathan C Craig; Camilla S Hanson; Angela Ju; Kirsten Howard; Tim Usherwood; Howard Lau; Allison Tong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.240