PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Michael Pignone

Publications and source records attributed to Michael Pignone.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Heart to Heart: a computerized decision aid for assessment of coronary heart disease risk and the impact of risk-reduction interventions for primary prevention.

Heart to Heart is a computer-based decision aid for patients and providers that provides personalized, evidence-based information about coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and potential risk-reducing interventions. To develop Heart to Heart, the authors used Framing-ham risk equations and systematic reviews of risk-reducing interventions. The Web version was programmed using PHP: Hypertext Processor, a Web-based programming language, and has separate interfaces for providers and patients. The authors subsequently developed a modified version for personal digital assistants. Heart to Heart uses information about a patient's CHD risk factors (age, gender, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, diabetes, smoking, systolic blood pressure, and left ventricular hypertrophy) to calculate risk of total CHD events over 5 or 10 years. Patients and providers can then examine the effect of introducing one or more risk-reducing interventions (aspirin, lipid-lowering drug therapy, antihypertensive medication, or smoking cessation) on the patient's CHD risk. Future research will be directed to determining whether Heart to Heart can improve utilization of effective CHD risk-reducing interventions.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Prostate and colon cancer screening messages in popular magazines.

OBJECTIVES: To 1) compare the number of articles published about prostate, colon, and breast cancer in popular magazines during the past 2 decades, and 2) evaluate the content of in-depth prostate and colon cancer screening articles identified from 1996 to 2001. DESIGN: We used a searchable database to identify the number of prostate, colon, and breast cancer articles published in three magazines with the highest circulation from six categories. In addition, we performed a systematic review on the in-depth (> or = 2 pages) articles on prostate and colon cancer screening that appeared from 1996 through 2001. RESULTS: Although the number of magazine articles on prostate and colon cancer published in the 1990s increased compared to the 1980s, the number of articles is approximately one third of breast cancer articles. There were 36 in-depth articles from 1996 to 2001 in which prostate or colon cancer screening were mentioned. Over 90% of the articles recommended screening. However, of those articles, only 76% (25/33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 58% to 89%) cited screening guidelines. The benefits of screening were mentioned in 89% (32/36; 95% CI, 74% to 97%) but the harms were only found in 58% (21/36; 95% CI, 41% to 75%). Only 28% (10/36; 95% CI, 14% to 45%) of the articles provided all the necessary information needed for the reader to make an informed decision. CONCLUSIONS: In-depth articles about prostate and colon cancer in popular magazines do not appear as frequently as articles about breast cancer. The available articles on prostate and colon cancer screening often do not provide the information necessary for the reader to make an informed decision about screening.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2003

Physicians' ability to predict the risk of coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Previous research examining physicians ability to estimate cardiovascular risk has shown that physicians' generally overestimate the absolute risk of CHD events. This question has, however, only studied risk prediction for a limited number of patient care scenarios. The aim of this study is to measure the ability of physicians to estimate the risk of CHD events in patients with no previous history of coronary heart disease. METHODS: Twelve primary prevention scenarios with a 5-year risk of CHD events were developed. This questionnaire was surveyed at 3 university teaching hospitals where the participants were a convenience sample of internal medicine residents and fellows or attending physicians in general internal medicine or cardiology. For each scenario, physicians were asked to estimate the baseline 5-year risk of a coronary heart disease event and the revised risk if the patient were to receive lipid-lowering drug therapy. Estimates of the baseline 5-year risk were compared with values calculated from Framingham risk equations. Inaccurate responses were defined as those with a ratio of estimated to actual risk of more than 1.5 or less than 0.67. Physicians' estimates of the relative risk reduction with therapy were considered to be accurate if they were between 25% and 40%. RESULTS: 79 physicians (53 residents, 8 fellows, 18 attending physicians) completed the survey. Only 24% of physicians' risk estimates were accurate. In most cases, physicians overestimated the absolute risk of cardiovascular events without therapy (proportion overestimating ranged from 32-92% for the 12 individual scenarios). Physicians made larger errors in patient scenarios involving patients with high total or LDL cholesterol levels. Physicians' estimates of the relative risk reduction from treatment were more accurate: 43% of estimates were between 25 and 40%. Over 85% of physicians recommended treatment in 10 of 12 scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians overestimate the absolute risk of CHD events and the potential absolute benefit of drug therapy.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2003

Screening for high blood pressure: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

CONTEXT: In 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening adults for hypertension. Since that time, the published literature on hypertension has expanded rapidly, necessitating a new examination of the evidence supporting screening. OBJECTIVE: Update the 1996 evidence review on screening for hypertension. DATA SOURCES: The 1996 Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, recent systematic reviews, and focused searches of MEDLINE were used to identify new evidence relevant to detecting and treating hypertension. STUDY SELECTION: When a good quality, recent systematic review was available, it was used to summarize previous research; MEDLINE was searched only for more recent articles. Two authors reviewed abstracts (and full texts, if necessary) of potentially relevant articles to determine if they should be included. DATA EXTRACTION: One author extracted data from included studies into evidence tables. DATA SYNTHESIS: Hypertension can be effectively detected through office measurement of blood pressure. Treatment of elevated blood pressure in adults can reduce cardiovascular events. The magnitude of risk reduction depends on the degree of hypertension and the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors. Available studies have found no important adverse effects on psychological well-being and mixed effects on the absenteeism rates of adults who are screened and labeled as being hypertensive. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial indirect evidence supports the effectiveness of screening adults to detect hypertension and treating them to reduce cardiovascular disease.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians.

PURPOSE: To examine the features of available Framingham-based risk calculation tools and review their accuracy and feasibility in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: medline, 1966-April 2003, and the google search engine on the Internet. TOOL AND STUDY SELECTION: We included risk calculation tools that used the Framingham risk equations to generate a global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. To determine tool accuracy, we reviewed all articles that compared the performance of various Framingham-based risk tools to that of the continuous Framingham risk equations. To determine the feasibility of tool use in clinical practice, we reviewed articles on the availability of the risk factor information required for risk calculation, subjective preference for 1 risk calculator over another, or subjective ease of use. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently reviewed the results of the literature search, all websites, and abstracted all articles for relevant information. DATA SYNTHESIS: Multiple CHD risk calculation tools are available, including risk charts and computerized calculators for personal digital assistants, personal computers, and web-based use. Most are easy to use and available without cost. They require information on age, smoking status, blood pressure, total and HDL cholesterol, and the presence or absence of diabetes. Compared to the full Framingham equations, accuracy for identifying patients at increased risk was generally quite high. Data on the feasibility of tool use was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Several easy-to-use tools are available for estimating patients' CHD risk. Use of such tools could facilitate better decision making about interventions for primary prevention of CHD, but further research about their actual effect on clinical practice and patient outcomes is required.

Coronary Disease↗
PubMed2002

Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, January 1993 through September 2001. STUDY SELECTION: Original economic evaluations of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk patients were reviewed. The authors sought studies addressing the incremental cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies compared with no screening, of different screening strategies compared with one another, and of different ages of screening initiation and cessation. Two investigators independently reviewed each abstract, and potentially eligible articles were retrieved. A four-member working group reached consensus regarding final inclusion or exclusion of articles. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data into evidence tables. The results were checked by other members and discrepancies resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 180 potential articles identified, 7 were retained in the final analysis. Compared with no screening, cost-effectiveness ratios for screening with any of the commonly considered methods were generally between 10, 000 dollars and 25, 000 dollars per life-year saved. No one strategy was consistently found to be the most effective or to have the best incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Currently available models provided insufficient evidence to determine optimal starting and stopping ages for screening. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for colorectal cancer appears cost-effective compared with no screening, but a single optimal strategy cannot be determined from the currently available data. Additional data regarding adherence with screening over time, complication rates in real-world settings, and colorectal cancer biology are needed. Additional analyses are necessary to determine optimal ages of initiation and cessation.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of different colorectal cancer screening tests for adults at average risk. DATA SOURCES: Recent systematic reviews; Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2nd edition; and focused searches of MEDLINE from 1966 through September 2001. The authors also conducted hand searches, reviewed bibliographies, and consulted context experts to ensure completeness. STUDY SELECTION: When available, the most recent high-quality systematic review was used to identify relevant articles. This review was then supplemented with a MEDLINE search for more recent articles. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted information from the final set of studies into evidence tables, and a second reviewer checked the tables for accuracy. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: For average-risk adults older than 50 years of age, evidence from multiple well-conducted randomized trials supported the effectiveness of fecal occult blood testing in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates compared with no screening. Data from well-conducted case-control studies supported the effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and possibly colonoscopy in reducing colon cancer incidence and mortality rates. A nonrandomized, controlled trial examining colorectal cancer mortality rates and randomized trials examining diagnostic yield supported the use of fecal occult blood testing plus sigmoidoscopy. The effectiveness of barium enema is unclear. Data are insufficient to support a definitive determination of the most effective screening strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer screening reduces death from colorectal cancer and can decrease the incidence of disease through removal of adenomatous polyps. Several available screening options seem to be effective, but the single best screening approach cannot be determined because data are insufficient.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2002

Recent developments in colorectal cancer screening and prevention.

Colorectal cancer is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality in the United States. Studies published in the early 1990s, showing that screening for colorectal cancer can reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality, led many organizations to recommend screening in asymptomatic, average-risk adults older than 50 years. Since then, however, national screening rates remain low. Several important studies published over the past four years have refined our understanding of existing screening tools and explored novel means of screening and prevention. The most important new developments, which are reviewed in this article, include the following: Additional trial results support the effectiveness of fecal occult blood testing in reducing the incidence of, and mortality from, colorectal cancer. New studies document the sensitivity of fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema compared with colonoscopy. Cost-effectiveness models show that screening by any of several methods is cost-effective compared to no screening. Randomized trials show that calcium is effective but fiber is not effective in preventing reoccurrence of adenomatous polyps. Preliminary data suggest that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may prevent adenomatous polyps and that DNA stool tests and virtual colonoscopy may show promise as screening tools. This new information provides further support for efforts to increase the use of colorectal cancer screening and prevention services in adults older than 50 years.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2002

Is this patient clinically depressed?

CONTEXT: Depressive disorders are highly prevalent in the general population, but recognition and accurate diagnosis are made difficult by the lack of a simple confirmatory test. OBJECTIVE: To review the accuracy and precision of depression questionnaires and the clinical examination for diagnosing clinical depression. DATA SOURCES: We searched the English-language literature from 1970 through July 2000 using MEDLINE, a specialized registry of depression trials, and bibliographies of selected articles. STUDY SELECTION: Case-finding studies were included if they used depression questionnaires with easy to average literacy requirements, evaluated at least 100 primary care patients, and compared questionnaire results with accepted diagnostic criteria for major depression. Eleven questionnaires, ranging in length from 1 to 30 questions, were assessed in 28 published studies. Reliability studies for the clinical examination required criterion-based diagnoses made by at least 2 clinicians who interviewed the patient or reviewed a taped examination. Fourteen studies evaluated interrater reliability. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of authors independently reviewed articles. For case-finding studies, quality assessment addressed sample size and whether patients were selected consecutively or randomly, the criterion standard was administered and interpreted independently of and blind to the results of the case-finding instrument, and the proportion of persons receiving the criterion standard assessment was less than or more than 50% of those approached for criterion standard assessment. For reliability studies, quality assessment addressed whether key patient characteristics were described, the interviewers collected clinical history independently, and diagnoses were made blinded to other clinicians' evaluations. DATA SYNTHESIS: In case-finding studies, average questionnaire administration times ranged from less than 1 minute to 5 minutes. The median likelihood ratio positive for major depression was 3.3 (range, 2.3-12.2) and the median likelihood ratio negative was 0.19 (range, 0.14-0.35). No significant differences between questionnaires were found. For mental health care professionals using a semistructured interview, agreement was substantial to almost perfect for major depression (kappa = 0.64-0.93). Nonstandardized interviews yielded somewhat lower agreement (kappa = 0.55-0.74). A single study showed that primary care clinicians using a semistructured interview have high agreement with mental health care professionals (kappa = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple, practical questionnaires with reasonable performance characteristics are available to help clinicians identify and diagnose patients with major depression. Diagnostic confirmation by mental health care professionals using a clinical interview or by primary care physicians using a semistructured interview can be made with high reliability.

Depressive Disorder↗
PubMed2002

Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: The use of aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease events in patients without a history of cardiovascular disease is controversial. PURPOSE: To examine the benefits and harms of aspirin chemoprevention. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to May 2001). STUDY SELECTION: 1) Randomized trials at least 1 year in duration that examined aspirin chemoprevention in patients without previously known cardiovascular disease and 2) systematic reviews, recent trials, and observational studies that examined rates of hemorrhagic strokes and gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to aspirin use. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer read and extracted data from each included article and constructed evidence tables. A second reviewer checked the accuracy of the data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis was performed, and the quantitative results of the review were then used to model the consequences of treating patients with different levels of baseline risk for coronary heart disease. Five trials examined the effect of aspirin on cardiovascular events in patients with no previous cardiovascular disease. For patients similar to those enrolled in the trials, aspirin reduces the risk for the combined end point of nonfatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease (summary odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87]). Aspirin increased the risk for hemorrhagic strokes (summary odds ratio, 1.4 [CI, 0.9 to 2.0]) and major gastrointestinal bleeding (summary odds ratio, 1.7 [CI, 1.4 to 2.1]). All-cause mortality (summary odds ratio, 0.93 [CI, 0.84 to 1.02]) was not significantly affected. For 1000 patients with a 5% risk for coronary heart disease events over 5 years, aspirin would prevent 6 to 20 myocardial infarctions but would cause 0 to 2 hemorrhagic strokes and 2 to 4 major gastrointestinal bleeding events. For patients with a risk of 1% over 5 years, aspirin would prevent 1 to 4 myocardial infarctions but would cause 0 to 2 hemorrhagic strokes and 2 to 4 major gastrointestinal bleeding events. CONCLUSIONS: The net benefit of aspirin increases with increasing cardiovascular risk. In the decision to use aspirin chemoprevention, the patient's cardiovascular risk and relative utility for the different clinical outcomes prevented or caused by aspirin use must be considered.

Adult↗