PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Publications and source records attributed to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Hormone therapy for the prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women: recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

This statement summarizes the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on hormone therapy for the prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women and the supporting scientific evidence, and updates the Task Force's 2002 recommendations on hormone replacement therapy. The updated statement is based on the results of the Women's Health Initiative randomized, controlled trial, as well as the information in the 2002 summary of the evidence on this topic, which is available on the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov).

Adult↗
PubMed2004

The meaning of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force grade I recommendation: screening for hepatitis C virus infection.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) formulates evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. These recommendations are communicated by letter grades that reflect the quality of evidence and the magnitude of net health benefit expected from delivering the preventive service. When the USPSTF finds insufficient evidence to determine the balance of health benefits or harms of delivering a preventive service, because of a lack of studies, poor-quality studies, or good-quality studies with conflicting results, the USPSTF assigns the service an I letter grade. The USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening for hepatitis C virus infection in high-risk individuals (I letter grade). This recommendation reflects the need for further research that would provide adequate evidence to assess the net health benefit for persons screened for hepatitis C virus infection.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2004

Screening for suicide risk in adults: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death and the seventh leading cause of years of potential life lost in the United States. Although suicide is of great public health significance, its clinical management is complicated. PURPOSE: The authors systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether screening for suicide risk in primary care settings decreases morbidity, mortality, or both. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to 17 October 2002), PsycINFO, Cochrane databases, hand-searched bibliographies, and experts. STUDY SELECTION: For screening, only English-language studies performed in primary care settings were examined. For treatment, randomized, controlled trials and cohort studies were included if they were performed in any setting where suicide completions, suicide attempts, or suicidal ideation were reported. DATA EXTRACTION: A primary reviewer abstracted data on key variables of study sample, design, and outcomes; a second reviewer checked information accuracy against the original articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: No study directly addressed whether screening for suicide in primary care reduces morbidity and mortality. The remainder of the review focused on the questions of reliable screening tests for suicide risk and the effectiveness of interventions to decrease depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts or completion. One screening study provided limited evidence for the accuracy of suicide screening in a primary care setting. Intervention studies provided fair and mixed evidence that treating those at risk for suicide reduces the number of suicide attempts or completions. The evidence suggests mild to moderate improvement for interventions addressing intermediate outcomes such as suicidal ideation, decreased depressive severity, decreased hopelessness, or improved level of function. CONCLUSION: Because of the complexity of studying the risk for suicide and the paucity of well-designed research studies, only limited evidence guides the primary care clinician's assessment and management of suicide risk.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2004

Screening for suicide risk: recommendation and rationale.

This statement summarizes the current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on screening for suicide risk and the supporting scientific evidence and updates the 1996 recommendations on this topic. The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the accompanying article in this issue and in the systematic evidence review on this topic, which is available through the USPSTF Web site (www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov) and through the National Guideline Clearinghouse (www.guideline.gov). The complete recommendation statement and the summary of the evidence are also available from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (telephone, 800-358-9295; e-mail, ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov).

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Lung cancer screening: recommendation statement.

This statement summarizes the current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for lung cancer and the supporting scientific evidence and updates the 1996 recommendations on this topic. In 1996, the USPSTF recommended against screening for lung cancer (a grade D recommendation). The Task Force now uses an explicit process in which the balance of benefits and harms is determined exclusively by the quality and magnitude of the evidence. As a result, current letter grades are based on different criteria than those used in 1996. The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the accompanying article in this issue and in the systematic evidence review on this topic, available through the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov) and the National Guideline Clearinghouse (http://www.guideline.gov). The complete USPSTF recommendation statement (which includes a brief review of the supporting evidence) and the summary of the evidence are also available in print through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (telephone, 800-358-9295; e-mail, ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov).

Female↗
PubMed2004

Lung cancer screening with sputum cytologic examination, chest radiography, and computed tomography: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States and worldwide. No major professional organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), currently recommend screening for lung cancer. PURPOSE: To examine the evidence evaluating screening for lung cancer with chest radiography, sputum cytologic examination, and low-dose computed tomography (CT) to aid the USPSTF in updating its recommendation on lung cancer screening. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, reviews, editorials, and experts. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that evaluated mass screening programs for lung cancer involving the tests of interest were selected. All studies were reviewed, but only studies with control groups were rated in quality since these would most directly influence the USPSTF screening recommendation. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted to data collection forms. Studies were graded according to criteria developed by the USPSTF. DATA SYNTHESIS: None of the 6 randomized trials of screening for lung cancer with chest radiography alone or in combination with sputum cytologic examination showed benefit among those screened. All studies were limited because some level of screening occurred in the control population. Five case-control studies from Japan suggested benefit to both high- and low-risk men and women. All studies were limited by potential healthy screenee bias. Six cohort studies showed that when CT was used to screen for lung cancer, lung cancer was diagnosed at an earlier stage than in usual clinical care. However, these studies did not have control groups, making mortality evaluation difficult. In addition, the studies demonstrated a high rate of false-positive findings. CONCLUSIONS: Current data do not support screening for lung cancer with any method. These data, however, are also insufficient to conclude that screening does not work, particularly in women. Two randomized trials of screening with chest radiography or low-dose CT are currently under way and will better inform lung cancer screening decisions.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2004

Screening for coronary heart disease: recommendation statement.

This statement summarizes the current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on screening for coronary heart disease and the supporting scientific evidence and updates the 1996 recommendations on this topic. The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the background article and the systematic evidence review, available through the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov) and through the National Guideline Clearinghouse (http://www.guideline.gov). The article and the recommendation statement are also available in print through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (telephone, 800-358-9295; e-mail, ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov).

Coronary Disease↗
PubMed2004

Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce alcohol misuse: recommendation statement.

This statement summarizes the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on behavioral counseling interventions to reduce alcohol misuse in primary care patients and updates the 1996 recommendations on this topic. The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the accompanying article in this issue and in the systematic evidence review on this topic. The complete USPSTF recommendation statement (which includes a brief review of the supporting evidence), the accompanying journal article, and the complete systematic evidence review are available through the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov). The journal article and the USPSTF recommendation statement are available in print through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (telephone, 800-358-9295; e-mail, ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov).

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care visits offer opportunities to identify and intervene with risky or harmful drinkers to reduce alcohol consumption. PURPOSE: To systematically review evidence for the efficacy of brief behavioral counseling interventions in primary care settings to reduce risky and harmful alcohol consumption. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Research Effectiveness (DARE), MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials, PsycINFO, HealthSTAR, CINAHL databases, bibliographies of reviews and included trials from 1994 through April 2002; update search through February 2003. STUDY SELECTION: An inclusive search strategy (alcohol* or drink*) identified English-language systematic reviews or trials of primary care interventions to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use. Twelve controlled trials with general adult patients met our quality and relevance inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Investigators abstracted study design and setting, participant characteristics, screening and assessment procedures, intervention components, alcohol consumption and other outcomes, and quality-related study details. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six to 12 months after good-quality, brief, multicontact behavioral counseling interventions (those with up to 15 minutes of initial contact and at least 1 follow-up), participants reduced the average number of drinks per week by 13% to 34% more than controls did, and the proportion of participants drinking at moderate or safe levels was 10% to 19% greater compared with controls. One study reported maintenance of improved drinking patterns for 48 months. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral counseling interventions for risky/harmful alcohol use among adult primary care patients could provide an effective component of a public health approach to reducing risky/harmful alcohol use. Future research should focus on implementation strategies to facilitate adoption of these practices into routine health care.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Exercise tolerance testing to screen for coronary heart disease: a systematic review for the technical support for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Exercise tolerance testing has been proposed as a means of better identifying asymptomatic patients at high risk for coronary heart disease events. PURPOSE: To review the evidence on the use of exercise tolerance testing to screen adults with no history of cardiovascular disease for coronary heart disease. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE database from 1966 through February 2003, hand-searching of bibliographies, and expert input. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies evaluated the benefits or harms of exercise tolerance testing when added to traditional risk assessment for adults with no known history of cardiovascular events. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted information from eligible articles into evidence tables, and another reviewer checked the tables. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: No study has directly examined the effect of screening asymptomatic patients with exercise tolerance testing on coronary heart disease outcomes or risk-reducing behaviors or therapies. Multiple cohort studies demonstrate that screening exercise tolerance testing identifies a small proportion of asymptomatic persons (up to 2.7% of those screened) with severe coronary artery obstruction who may benefit from revascularization. Several large prospective cohort studies, conducted principally in middle-aged men, suggest that exercise tolerance testing can provide independent prognostic information about the risk for future coronary heart disease events (relative risk with abnormal exercise tolerance testing, 2.0 to 5.0). However, when the risk for coronary heart disease events is low, most positive findings will be false and may result in unnecessary further testing or worry. The risk level at which the benefits of additional prognostic information outweigh the harms of false-positive results is unclear and requires further study. CONCLUSIONS: Although screening exercise tolerance testing detects severe coronary artery obstruction in a small proportion of persons screened and can provide independent prognostic information about the risk for coronary heart disease events, the effect of this information on clinical management and disease outcomes in asymptomatic patients is unclear.

Coronary Disease↗
PubMed2004

Screening for hepatitis C virus infection: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most common bloodborne pathogen in the United States and is an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality, but it is unclear whether screening to identify asymptomatic infected persons is appropriate. PURPOSE: To synthesize the evidence on risks and benefits of screening for HCV infection. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (through February 2003), Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry (2002, Issue 2), reference lists, and experts. STUDY SELECTION: Controlled studies of screening and antiviral therapy and observational studies on other interventions, risk factors, accuracy of antibody testing, work-up, harms of biopsy, and long-term outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Using preset criteria, the authors assessed the quality of included studies and abstracted information about settings, patients, interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: There are no published trials of screening for HCV infection. Approximately 2% of U.S. adults have HCV antibodies, with the majority having chronic infection. Risk factor assessment could identify adults at substantially higher risk. Antiviral treatment can result in a sustained virologic response rate of 54% to 56%, but no trials have been done specifically in asymptomatic patients likely to be identified by screening. Data are insufficient to determine whether treatment improves long-term outcomes. There are no data to estimate the benefit from counseling or immunizations. Although risks of biopsy and treatment appear minimal or self-limited, data on other adverse effects of screening, such as labeling or anxiety, are sparse. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral treatment can successfully eradicate HCV, but data on long-term outcomes in populations likely to be identified by screening are lacking. Although the yield from targeted screening, particularly in intravenous drug users, would be substantially higher than in the general population, data are inadequate to accurately weigh the overall benefits and risks of screening in otherwise healthy asymptomatic adults.

Adult↗