This USPSTF recommendation on screening for prostate cancer considers evidence on the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based screening for prostate cancer, as well as those of ...

/pdf/screening-for-prostate-cancer-u-s-preventive-services-task-1mzp6sktrg.pdf

Screening for Prostate Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/8378925/The_benefits_and_harms_of_breast_cancer_screening.pdf

The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review

Description: Update of the 2002 U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population. Methods: The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. Recommendations: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement)

/pdf/screening-for-breast-cancer-us-preventive-services-task-3mgfmvx4oo.pdf

Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Importance Breast cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality among US women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Objective To update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2003 breast cancer screening guideline for women at average risk for breast cancer. Process The ACS commissioned a systematic evidence review of the breast cancer screening literature to inform the update and a supplemental analysis of mammography registry data to address questions related to the screening interval. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. Evidence Synthesis Screening mammography in women aged 40 to 69 years is associated with a reduction in breast cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports breast cancer screening for women 70 years and older who are in good health. Estimates of the cumulative lifetime risk of false-positive examination results are greater if screening begins at younger ages because of the greater number of mammograms, as well as the higher recall rate in younger women. The quality of the evidence for overdiagnosis is not sufficient to estimate a lifetime risk with confidence. Analysis examining the screening interval demonstrates more favorable tumor characteristics when premenopausal women are screened annually vs biennially. Evidence does not support routine clinical breast examination as a screening method for women at average risk. Recommendations The ACS recommends that women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years (strong recommendation). Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (qualified recommendation). Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually (qualified recommendation). Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (qualified recommendation). Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer (qualified recommendation). The ACS does not recommend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qualified recommendation). Conclusions and Relevance These updated ACS guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. These recommendations should be considered by physicians and women in discussions about breast cancer screening.

/pdf/breast-cancer-screening-for-women-at-average-risk-2015-2zpe99a39l.pdf

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society

Objective To determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression. Design Individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-February 2015). Inclusion criteria Eligible studies compared PHQ-9 scores with major depression diagnoses from validated diagnostic interviews. Primary study data and study level data extracted from primary reports were synthesized. For PHQ-9 cut-off scores 5-15, bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews, which are designed for administration by clinicians; fully structured interviews, which are designed for lay administration; and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric (MINI) diagnostic interviews, a brief fully structured interview. Sensitivity and specificity were examined among participant subgroups and, separately, using meta-regression, considering all subgroup variables in a single model. Results Data were obtained for 58 of 72 eligible studies (total n=17 357; major depression cases n=2312). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximized at a cut-off score of 10 or above among studies using a semistructured interview (29 studies, 6725 participants; sensitivity 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.92; specificity 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88). Across cut-off scores 5-15, sensitivity with semistructured interviews was 5-22% higher than for fully structured interviews (MINI excluded; 14 studies, 7680 participants) and 2-15% higher than for the MINI (15 studies, 2952 participants). Specificity was similar across diagnostic interviews. The PHQ-9 seems to be similarly sensitive but may be less specific for younger patients than for older patients; a cut-off score of 10 or above can be used regardless of age.. Conclusions PHQ-9 sensitivity compared with semistructured diagnostic interviews was greater than in previous conventional meta-analyses that combined reference standards. A cut-off score of 10 or above maximized combined sensitivity and specificity overall and for subgroups. Registration PROSPERO CRD42014010673.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/365/bmj.l1476.full.pdf

Accuracy of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression: individual participant data meta-analysis

In 2010 the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) was reconstituted through a funding agreement between the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Its mandate is to develop and disseminate clinical practice guidelines for primary and preventive care, based on systematic analysis of scientific evidence. The CTFPHC (formerly the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination) was originally established in 1976. The initial series of recommendations, the first of its kind, was published as a 61-page peer-reviewed paper in the CMAJ in 1979.1 Subsequently, in 1994, the CTFPHC published 81 of its recommendations in a compilation called The Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care.2 The CTFPHC has had an international reputation for providing outstanding guidance for practitioners using rigorous, high-quality methods. Its reports have been used by many agencies around the world, including the US Preventive Services Task Force (which developed its approach based on CTFPHC methods). Originally, funding was provided by a partnership between the federal and the provincial and territorial governments, but when funding expired in 2005, the CTFPHC was disbanded. Since then, the primary care community has been without a national preventive care guideline group, although many local and provincial organizations have partly filled the void.

Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Ccfp

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care