Literature DB >> 29254521

Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Methods for Understanding Certainty and Net Benefit When Making Recommendations.

Alex H Krist1, Tracy A Wolff2, Daniel E Jonas3, Russell P Harris3, Michael L LeFevre4, Alex R Kemper5, Carol M Mangione6, Chien-Wen Tseng7, David C Grossman8.   

Abstract

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has developed and used rigorous methods to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services to promote health and well-being for all Americans. Recommendations are based on the evidence of magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms). Expert opinion is not substituted when evidence is lacking. Evidence gaps are common. Few preventive services are supported by high-quality studies that directly and comprehensively determine the overall magnitude of benefits and harms in the same study. When assessing the body of evidence, studies may not have been conducted in primary care settings, studies may not have sufficiently included populations of interest, and long-term outcomes may not have been directly assessed. When direct evidence is not available, the USPSTF uses the methodologies of applicability to determine whether evidence can be generalized to an asymptomatic primary care population; coherence to link bodies of evidence and create an indirect evidence pathway; extrapolation to make inferences across the indirect evidence pathway, extend evidence to populations not specifically studied, consider service delivery intervals, and infer long-term outcomes; and conceptual bounding to set theoretical lower or upper limits for plausible benefits or harms. The USPSTF extends the evidence only so far as to maintain at least moderate certainty that its findings are preserved. This manuscript details with examples of how the USPSTF uses these methods to make recommendations that truly reflect the evidence.
Copyright © 2018 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29254521     DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.09.011

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Defining certainty of net benefit: a GRADE concept paper.

Authors:  Brian S Alper; Peter Oettgen; Ilkka Kunnamo; Alfonso Iorio; Mohammed Toseef Ansari; M Hassan Murad; Joerg J Meerpohl; Amir Qaseem; Monica Hultcrantz; Holger J Schünemann; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative).

Authors:  Nórton Luís Oliveira; Cíntia Ehlers Botton; Angélica Trevisan De Nardi; Daniel Umpierre
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2021-12-02

3.  A Window of Opportunity for Newborn Screening.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 4.476

4.  Priorities for improvement across cancer and non-cancer related preventive services among rural and non-rural clinicians.

Authors:  Michaela Brtnikova; Jamie L Studts; Elise Robertson; L Miriam Dickinson; Jennifer K Carroll; Alex H Krist; John T Cronin; Russell E Glasgow
Journal:  BMC Prim Care       Date:  2022-09-09

Review 5.  Quantitative Evidence Synthesis Methods for the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences for Clinical and Economic Decision Making: A Review and Taxonomy of Simplifying Assumptions.

Authors:  Ruth A Lewis; Dyfrig Hughes; Alex J Sutton; Clare Wilkinson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 4.981

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.