-
JAMA May 2023In the US, tuberculosis remains an important preventable disease, including active tuberculosis, which may be infectious, and latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), which...
IMPORTANCE
In the US, tuberculosis remains an important preventable disease, including active tuberculosis, which may be infectious, and latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), which is asymptomatic and not infectious but can later progress to active disease. The precise prevalence rate of LTBI in the US is difficult to determine; however, estimated prevalence is about 5.0%, or up to 13 million persons. Incidence of tuberculosis varies by geography and living accommodations, suggesting an association with social determinants of health.
OBJECTIVE
To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on LTBI screening and treatment in asymptomatic adults seen in primary care, as well as the accuracy of LTBI screening tests.
POPULATION
Asymptomatic adults 18 years or older at increased risk for tuberculosis.
EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT
The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit in preventing active tuberculosis disease by screening for LTBI in persons at increased risk for tuberculosis infection.
RECOMMENDATION
The USPSTF recommends screening for LTBI in populations at increased risk. (B recommendation).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Latent Tuberculosis; Mass Screening; Risk Assessment; Tuberculosis; United States; Social Determinants of Health
PubMed: 37129649
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.4899 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2024Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorder, with main manifestations related to communication, social interaction, and behavioral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorder, with main manifestations related to communication, social interaction, and behavioral patterns. The slight dynamics of change in the child over time require that the onset of clinical manifestations presented by the child be more valued, with the aim of stabilizing the condition. Faced with a variety of methods for diagnosing ASD, the question arises as to which method should be used. This systematic review aims to recommend the best tools to perform screening and diagnosis.
METHODOLOGY
This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and Lilacs were accessed, and gray and manual searches were performed. The search strategy was created with terms referring to autism and the diagnosis/broad filter. The studies were qualitatively evaluated and quantitatively. Statistical analysis was performed using Meta-diSc-2.0 software, the confidence interval was 95 %.
RESULTS
The M-CHAT-R/F tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 78 % (95 % CI 0.57‒0.91) and specificity of 0.98 (95 % CI 0.88-1.00). The diagnostic tools demonstrated sensitivity and specificity respectively of: ADOS, sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI 0.79‒0.92) and specificity 75 % (95 % CI 0.73‒0.78); ADI-R demonstrated test sensitivity of 77 % (95 % CI 0.56‒0.90) and specificity 68 % (95 % CI 0.52‒0.81), CARS test sensitivity was 89 % (95 % CI 0.78‒0.95) and specificity 79 % (95 % CI 0.65‒0.88).
CONCLUSION
It is mandatory to apply a screening test, the most recommended being the M-CHAT-R/F. For diagnosis CARS and ADOS are the most recommended tools.
Topics: Child; Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Sensitivity and Specificity; Mass Screening; Communication; Research Design
PubMed: 38484581
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2023.100323 -
American Journal of Hypertension Nov 2015Community-based self-screening may provide opportunities to increase detection of hypertension, and identify raised blood pressure (BP) in populations who do not access... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Community-based self-screening may provide opportunities to increase detection of hypertension, and identify raised blood pressure (BP) in populations who do not access healthcare. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-physician screening and self-screening of BP in community settings.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index & Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to November 2013 to identify studies reporting community-based self-screening or non-physician screening for hypertension in adults. Results were stratified by study site, screener, and the cut-off used to define high screening BP.
RESULTS
We included 73 studies, which described screening in 9 settings, with pharmacies (22%) and public areas/retail (15%) most commonly described. We found high levels of heterogeneity in all analyses, despite stratification. The highest proportions of eligible participants screened were achieved by mobile units (range 21%-88%) and pharmacies (range 40%-90%). Self-screeners had similar median rates of high BP detection (25%-35%) to participants in studies using other screeners. Few (16%) studies reported referral to primary care after screening. However, where participants were referred, a median of 44% (range 17%-100%) received a new hypertension diagnosis or antihypertensive medication.
CONCLUSIONS
Community-based non-physician or self-screening for raised BP can detect raised BP, which may lead to the identification of new cases of hypertension. However, current evidence is insufficient to recommend specific approaches or settings. Studies with good follow-up of patients to definitive diagnosis are needed.
Topics: Adult; Community Health Services; Diagnostic Self Evaluation; Humans; Hypertension; Mass Screening
PubMed: 25801901
DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpv029 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... Dec 2017Depression screening among children and adolescents is controversial. In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force first recommended routine depression... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Depression screening among children and adolescents is controversial. In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force first recommended routine depression screening for adolescents, and this recommendation was reiterated in 2016. However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of screening were identified in the original 2009 systematic review or in an updated review through February 2015. The objective of this systematic review was to provide a current evaluation to determine whether there is evidence from RCTs that depression screening in childhood and adolescence improves depression outcomes.
METHOD
Data sources included the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS databases searched February 2, 2017. Eligible studies had to be RCTs that compared depression outcomes between children or adolescents aged 6 to 18 years who underwent depression screening and those who did not.
RESULTS
Of 552 unique title/abstracts, none received full-text review. No RCTs that investigated the effects of screening on depression outcomes in children or adolescents were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no direct RCT evidence that supports depression screening among children and adolescents. Groups that consider recommending screening should carefully consider potential harms, as well as the use of scarce health resources, that would occur with the implementation of screening programs.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Mass Screening; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 28851234
DOI: 10.1177/0706743717727243 -
Preventive Medicine Aug 2016To examine evidence on benefits and harms of screening average to high-risk adults for lung cancer using chest radiology (CXR), sputum cytology (SC) and low-dose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To examine evidence on benefits and harms of screening average to high-risk adults for lung cancer using chest radiology (CXR), sputum cytology (SC) and low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted to provide up to date evidence for Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) lung cancer screening guidelines. Four databases were searched to March 31, 2015 along with utilizing a previous Cochrane review search. Randomized trials reporting benefits were included; any design was included for harms. Meta-analyses were performed if possible. PROSPERO #CRD42014009984.
RESULTS
Thirty-four studies were included. For lung cancer mortality there was no benefit of CXR screening, with or without SC. Pooled results from three small trials comparing LDCT to usual care found no significant benefits for lung cancer mortality. One large high quality trial showed statistically significant reductions of 20% in lung cancer mortality over a follow-up of 6.5years, for LDCT compared with CXR. LDCT screening was associated with: overdiagnosis of 10.99-25.83%; 11.18 deaths and 52.03 patients with major complications per 1000 undergoing invasive follow-up procedures; median estimate for false positives of 25.53% for baseline/once-only screening and 23.28% for multiple rounds; and 9.74 and 5.28 individuals per 1000 screened, with benign conditions underwent minor and major invasive follow-up procedures.
CONCLUSION
The evidence does not support CXR screening with or without sputum cytology for lung cancer. High quality evidence showed that in selected high-risk individuals, LDCT screening significantly reduced lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality. However, for its implementation at a population level, the current evidence warrants the development of standardized practices for screening with LDCT and follow-up invasive testing to maximize accuracy and reduce potential associated harms.
Topics: Canada; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Mass Screening; Mortality; Risk Factors; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 27130532
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.015 -
International Journal of Geriatric... Feb 2018The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; Nasreddine et al., 2005) is a cognitive screening tool that aims to differentiate healthy cognitive aging from Mild Cognitive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; Nasreddine et al., 2005) is a cognitive screening tool that aims to differentiate healthy cognitive aging from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Several validation studies have been conducted on the MoCA, in a variety of clinical populations. Some studies have indicated that the originally suggested cutoff score of 26/30 leads to an inflated rate of false positives, particularly for those of older age and/or lower education. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the MoCA for differentiating healthy cognitive aging from possible MCI.
METHODS
Of the 304 studies identified, nine met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. These studies were assessed across a range of cutoff scores to determine the respective sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive accuracies, likelihood ratios for positive and negative results, classification accuracies, and Youden indices.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis revealed a cutoff score of 23/30 yielded the best diagnostic accuracy across a range of parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
A MoCA cutoff score of 23, rather than the initially recommended score of 26, lowers the false positive rate and shows overall better diagnostic accuracy. We recommend the use of this cutoff score going forward. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Topics: Aging; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Mass Screening; Mental Status and Dementia Tests; Reference Values; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 28731508
DOI: 10.1002/gps.4756 -
Acta Diabetologica Jun 2018Although diabetes is rapidly increasing in India, there is no national consensus on best practices for screening, diagnosis, and management of gestational diabetes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Although diabetes is rapidly increasing in India, there is no national consensus on best practices for screening, diagnosis, and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The goal of this study was to systematically review the literature for studies reporting the prevalence and screening and diagnostic methods for gestational diabetes in India.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and POPLINE for studies on screening for GDM in India. We included English-language full reports and conference abstracts of cross-sectional studies, prospective, and retrospective cohorts that reported the screening method and prevalence of GDM. We performed descriptive analysis on all studies and meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup meta-analysis on studies with medium or low risk of bias.
RESULTS
We included 64 studies reporting 90 prevalence estimates. Prevalence estimates ranged from 0 to 41.9%. Subset meta-analyses showed that the IADPSG diagnostic criteria found significantly more GDM cases (prevalence = 19.19% [15.5, 23.6], p < 0.05) than the WHO 1999 criteria (10.13% [8.17, 12.50]) and DIPSI criteria (7.37% [5.2, 10.16]). Studies that compared the IADPSG and WHO 1999 criteria showed poor positive agreement (33-79%). Studies specifying time of GDM diagnosis showed that patients (11-60%) develop GDM as early as the first trimester, but many GDM cases (16-40%) are missed if screened only at first visit.
CONCLUSIONS
In India, prevalence estimates of GDM vary substantially by diagnostic criteria. When evaluating screening and diagnostic criteria for GDM, providers should consider their patients' needs and correlate screening criteria with pregnancy outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Glucose Tolerance Test; Humans; India; Mass Screening; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Diagnosis; Prevalence
PubMed: 29582160
DOI: 10.1007/s00592-018-1131-1 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Mar 2017Implementation of mass colorectal cancer screening, using faecal occult blood test or colonoscopy, is recommended by the European Union in order to increase... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Implementation of mass colorectal cancer screening, using faecal occult blood test or colonoscopy, is recommended by the European Union in order to increase cancer-specific survival by diagnosing disease in an earlier stage. Post-colonoscopy complications have been addressed by previous systematic reviews, but morbidity of colorectal cancer screening on multiple levels has never been evaluated before.
AIM
To evaluate potential harm as a result of mass colorectal cancer screening in terms of complications after colonoscopy, morbidity and mortality following surgery, psychological distress and inappropriate use of the screening test.
METHODS
A systematic review of all literature on morbidity and mortality attributed to colorectal cancer screening, using faecal occult blood test or colonoscopy, from each databases' inception to August 2016 was performed. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the pooled incidence of major complications of colonoscopy (major bleedings and perforations).
RESULTS
Sixty studies were included. Five out of seven included prospective studies on psychological morbidity reported an association between participation in a colorectal screening program and psychological distress. Serious morbidity from colonoscopy in asymptomatic patients included major bleedings (0.8/1000 procedures, 95% CI 0.18-1.63) and perforations (0.07/1000 procedures, 95% CI 0.006-0.17).
CONCLUSIONS
Participation in a colorectal cancer screening program is associated with psychological distress and can cause serious adverse events. Nevertheless, the short duration of psychological impact as well as the low colonoscopy complication rate seems reassuring. Because of limited literature on harms other than perforation and bleeding, future research on this topic is greatly needed to contribute to future screening recommendations.
Topics: Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Mass Screening; Morbidity; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 28236723
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.02.002 -
Social Science & Medicine (1982) Sep 2016Men have poorer health status and are less likely to attend health screening compared to women. (Review)
Review
RATIONALE
Men have poorer health status and are less likely to attend health screening compared to women.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review presents current evidence on the barriers and facilitators to engaging men in health screening.
METHODS
We included qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies identified through five electronic databases, contact with experts and reference mining. Two researchers selected and appraised the studies independently. Data extraction and synthesis were conducted using the 'best fit' framework synthesis method.
RESULTS
53 qualitative, 44 quantitative and 6 mixed-method studies were included. Factors influencing health screening uptake in men can be categorized into five domains: individual, social, health system, healthcare professional and screening procedure. The most commonly reported barriers are fear of getting the disease and low risk perception; for facilitators, they are perceived risk and benefits of screening. Male-dominant barriers include heterosexual -self-presentation, avoidance of femininity and lack of time. The partner's role is the most common male-dominant facilitator to screening.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of barriers and facilitators to health screening in men including the male-dominant factors. The findings are particularly useful for clinicians, researchers and policy makers who are developing interventions and policies to increase screening uptake in men.
Topics: Adult; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Men's Health; Patient Acceptance of Health Care
PubMed: 27511617
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.023 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2021To examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.
DESIGN
Systematic review of test accuracy studies.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies reporting test accuracy of AI algorithms, alone or in combination with radiologists, to detect cancer in women's digital mammograms in screening practice, or in test sets. Reference standard was biopsy with histology or follow-up (for screen negative women). Outcomes included test accuracy and cancer type detected.
STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A single reviewer extracted data, which were checked by a second reviewer. Narrative data synthesis was performed.
RESULTS
Twelve studies totalling 131 822 screened women were included. No prospective studies measuring test accuracy of AI in screening practice were found. Studies were of poor methodological quality. Three retrospective studies compared AI systems with the clinical decisions of the original radiologist, including 79 910 women, of whom 1878 had screen detected cancer or interval cancer within 12 months of screening. Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists. Five smaller studies (1086 women, 520 cancers) at high risk of bias and low generalisability to the clinical context reported that all five evaluated AI systems (as standalone to replace radiologist or as a reader aid) were more accurate than a single radiologist reading a test set in the laboratory. In three studies, AI used for triage screened out 53%, 45%, and 50% of women at low risk but also 10%, 4%, and 0% of cancers detected by radiologists.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence for AI does not yet allow judgement of its accuracy in breast cancer screening programmes, and it is unclear where on the clinical pathway AI might be of most benefit. AI systems are not sufficiently specific to replace radiologist double reading in screening programmes. Promising results in smaller studies are not replicated in larger studies. Prospective studies are required to measure the effect of AI in clinical practice. Such studies will require clear stopping rules to ensure that AI does not reduce programme specificity.
STUDY REGISTRATION
Protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD42020213590.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening
PubMed: 34470740
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1872