Literature DB >> 29632037

Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process.

Mark J Dobrow1, Victoria Hagens2, Roger Chafe2, Terrence Sullivan2, Linda Rabeneck2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 1968, Wilson and Jungner published 10 principles of screening that often represent the de facto starting point for screening decisions today; 50 years on, are these principles still the right ones? Our objectives were to review published work that presents principles for population-based screening decisions since Wilson and Jungner's seminal publication, and to conduct a Delphi consensus process to assess the review results.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and modified Delphi consensus process. We searched multiple databases for articles published in English in 1968 or later that were intended to guide population-based screening decisions, described development and modification of principles, and presented principles as a set or list. Identified sets were compared for basic characteristics (e.g., number, categorization), a citation analysis was conducted, and principles were iteratively synthesized and consolidated into categories to assess evolution. Participants in the consensus process assessed the level of agreement with the importance and interpretability of the consolidated screening principles.
RESULTS: We identified 41 sets and 367 unique principles. Each unique principle was coded to 12 consolidated decision principles that were further categorized as disease/condition, test/intervention or program/system principles. Program or system issues were the focus of 3 of Wilson and Jungner's 10 principles, but comprised almost half of all unique principles identified in the review. The 12 consolidated principles were assessed through 2 rounds of the consensus process, leading to specific refinements to improve their relevance and interpretability. No gaps or missing principles were identified.
INTERPRETATION: Wilson and Jungner's principles are remarkably enduring, but increasingly reflect a truncated version of contemporary thinking on screening that does not fully capture subsequent focus on program or system principles. Ultimately, this review and consensus process provides a comprehensive and iterative modernization of guidance to inform population-based screening decisions.
© 2018 Joule Inc. or its licensors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29632037      PMCID: PMC5893317          DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.171154

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  28 in total

1.  Serving the family from birth to the medical home. Newborn screening: a blueprint for the future - a call for a national agenda on state newborn screening programs

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 2.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.

Authors:  Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-07-05       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Introducing new screens: why are we all doing different things?

Authors:  R J Pollitt
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2007-07-06       Impact factor: 4.982

Review 4.  A framework provided an outline toward the proper evaluation of potential screening strategies.

Authors:  Wim J Adriaensen; Cathy Matheï; Frank J Buntinx; Marc Arbyn
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 5.  Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: a systematic review.

Authors:  C A Seymour; M J Thomason; R A Chalmers; G M Addison; M D Bain; F Cockburn; P Littlejohns; J Lord; A H Wilcox
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 6.  Validation of screening procedures.

Authors:  A L Cochrane; W W Holland
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  1971-01       Impact factor: 4.291

Review 7.  Screening for the early detection of cancer.

Authors:  P C Prorok; R J Connor
Journal:  Cancer Invest       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.176

8.  Criteria for organized cervical screening programs. Special emphasis on The Netherlands program.

Authors:  Antonius G J M Hanselaar
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.319

9.  Screening criteria: the need to deal with new developments and ethical issues in newborn metabolic screening.

Authors:  John Forman; Fiona Coyle; Jill Levy-Fisch; Pat Roberts; Sharon Terry; Michael Legge
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-10-07

10.  Evaluation of screening programmes for gynaecological cancer.

Authors:  M Hakama; J Chamberlain; N E Day; A B Miller; P C Prorok
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  42 in total

1.  Routine ACEs screening is NOT recommended.

Authors:  John D McLennan; Harriet L MacMillan; Tracie O Afifi; Jill McTavish; Andrea Gonzalez; Charlotte Waddell
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2019-04-11       Impact factor: 2.253

2.  Principles for screening: Too few concerns for informed consent and shared decision-making?

Authors:  Alain Braillon; Philippe Nicot; Cécile Bour
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  An appraisal of the Wilson & Jungner criteria in the context of genomic-based newborn screening for inborn errors of immunity.

Authors:  Jovanka R King; Luigi D Notarangelo; Lennart Hammarström
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 10.793

Review 4.  Personalised medicine and population health: breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Steven A Narod
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 4.132

5.  Development of a Brief Patient-Administered Screening Tool for Prescription Opioid Dependence for Primary Care Settings.

Authors:  Suzanne Nielsen; Louisa Picco; Gabrielle Campbell; Nicholas Lintzeris; Briony Larance; Michael Farrell; Louisa Degenhardt; Raimondo Bruno
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 3.750

Review 6.  Early Detection of CKD: Implications for Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries.

Authors:  Marcello Tonelli; James A Dickinson
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 10.121

Review 7.  Screening of cancer predisposition syndromes.

Authors:  Haifa Al-Sarhani; Ravi V Gottumukkala; Angelo Don S Grasparil; Eric L Tung; Michael S Gee; Mary-Louise C Greer
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2021-04-01

8.  Principles of Genomic Newborn Screening Programs: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lilian Downie; Jane Halliday; Sharon Lewis; David J Amor
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-07-01

9.  Blood transcriptional biomarkers of acute viral infection for detection of pre-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nested, case-control diagnostic accuracy study.

Authors:  Rishi K Gupta; Joshua Rosenheim; Lucy C Bell; Aneesh Chandran; Jose A Guerra-Assuncao; Gabriele Pollara; Matthew Whelan; Jessica Artico; George Joy; Hibba Kurdi; Daniel M Altmann; Rosemary J Boyton; Mala K Maini; Aine McKnight; Jonathan Lambourne; Teresa Cutino-Moguel; Charlotte Manisty; Thomas A Treibel; James C Moon; Benjamin M Chain; Mahdad Noursadeghi
Journal:  Lancet Microbe       Date:  2021-07-06

10.  Assessment of vitamin B12 deficiency and B12 screening trends for patients on metformin: a retrospective cohort case review.

Authors:  Darby Martin; Jeet Thaker; Maria Shreve; Lois Lamerato; Kartazyna Budzynska
Journal:  BMJ Nutr Prev Health       Date:  2021-01-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.