-
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Aug 2022Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little information is known about how many countries have issued breast cancer screening guidelines and the differences among existing guidelines. We systematically reviewed current guidelines and summarized corresponding recommendations, to provide references for good clinical practice in different countries.
METHODS
Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to March 27th, 2021 were conducted and supplemented by reviewing the guideline development organizations. The quality of screening guidelines was assessed from six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) instrument by two appraisers. The basic information and recommendations of the issued guidelines were extracted and summarized.
RESULTS
A total of 23 guidelines issued between 2010 and 2021 in 11 countries or regions were identified for further review. The content and quality varied across the guidelines. The average AGREE Ⅱ scores of the guidelines ranged from 33.3% to 87.5%. The highest domain score was "clarity of presentation" while the domain with the lowest score was "applicability". For average-risk women, most of the guidelines recommended mammographic screening for those aged 40-74 years, specifically, those aged 50-69 years were regarded as the optimal age group for screening. Nine of 23 guidelines recommended against an upper age limit for breast cancer screening. Mammography (MAM) was recommended as the primary screening modality for average-risk women by all included guidelines. Most guidelines suggested annual or biennial mammographic screening. Risk factors of breast cancer identified in the guidelines mainly fell within five categories which could be broadly summarized as the personal history of pre-cancerous lesions and/or breast cancer; the family history of breast cancer; the known genetic predisposition of breast cancer; the history of mantle or chest radiation therapy; and dense breasts. For women at higher risk, there was a consensus among most guidelines that annual MAM or annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be given, and the screening should begin earlier than the average-risk group.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of 23 included international guidelines were issued by developed countries which contained roughly the same but not identical recommendations on breast cancer screening age, methods, and intervals. Most guidelines recommended annual or biennial mammographic screening between 40 and 74 years for average-risk populations and annual MAM or annual MRI starting from a younger age for high-risk populations. Current guidelines varied in quality and increased efforts are needed to improve the methodological quality of guidance documents. Due to lacking clinical practice guidelines tailored to different economic levels, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) should apply and implement the evidence-based guidelines with higher AGREE Ⅱ scores considering local adaption.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening
PubMed: 35636342
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.04.003 -
The American Journal of Psychiatry Jul 2021The authors sought to identify scalable evidence-based suicide prevention strategies.
OBJECTIVE
The authors sought to identify scalable evidence-based suicide prevention strategies.
METHODS
A search of PubMed and Google Scholar identified 20,234 articles published between September 2005 and December 2019, of which 97 were randomized controlled trials with suicidal behavior or ideation as primary outcomes or epidemiological studies of limiting access to lethal means, using educational approaches, and the impact of antidepressant treatment.
RESULTS
Training primary care physicians in depression recognition and treatment prevents suicide. Educating youths on depression and suicidal behavior, as well as active outreach to psychiatric patients after discharge or a suicidal crisis, prevents suicidal behavior. Meta-analyses find that antidepressants prevent suicide attempts, but individual randomized controlled trials appear to be underpowered. Ketamine reduces suicidal ideation in hours but is untested for suicidal behavior prevention. Cognitive-behavioral therapy and dialectical behavior therapy prevent suicidal behavior. Active screening for suicidal ideation or behavior is not proven to be better than just screening for depression. Education of gatekeepers about youth suicidal behavior lacks effectiveness. No randomized trials have been reported for gatekeeper training for prevention of adult suicidal behavior. Algorithm-driven electronic health record screening, Internet-based screening, and smartphone passive monitoring to identify high-risk patients are understudied. Means restriction, including of firearms, prevents suicide but is sporadically employed in the United States, even though firearms are used in half of all U.S. suicides.
CONCLUSIONS
Training general practitioners warrants wider implementation and testing in other nonpsychiatrist physician settings. Active follow-up of patients after discharge or a suicide-related crisis should be routine, and restricting firearm access by at-risk individuals warrants wider use. Combination approaches in health care systems show promise in reducing suicide in several countries, but evaluating the benefit attributable to each component is essential. Further suicide rate reduction requires evaluating newer approaches, such as electronic health record-derived algorithms, Internet-based screening methods, ketamine's potential benefit for preventing attempts, and passive monitoring of acute suicide risk change.
Topics: Evidence-Based Practice; Humans; Mass Screening; Suicide Prevention
PubMed: 33596680
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20060864 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Apr 2017Developing countries have limited healthcare resources and use different strategies to diagnose breast cancer. Most of the population depends on the public healthcare... (Review)
Review
Developing countries have limited healthcare resources and use different strategies to diagnose breast cancer. Most of the population depends on the public healthcare system, which affects the diagnosis of the tumor. Thus, the indicators observed in developed countries cannot be directly compared with those observed in developing countries because the healthcare infrastructures in developing countries are deficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate breast cancer screening strategies and indicators in developing countries. A systematic review and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Timing, and Setting methodology were performed to identify possible indicators of presentation at diagnosis and the methodologies used in developing countries. We searched PubMed for the terms "Breast Cancer" or "Breast Cancer Screening" and "Developing Country" or "Developing Countries". In all, 1,149 articles were identified. Of these articles, 45 full articles were selected, which allowed us to identify indicators related to epidemiology, diagnostic intervention (diagnostic strategy, diagnostic infrastructure, percentage of women undergoing mammography), quality of intervention (presentation of symptoms at diagnosis, time to diagnosis, early stage disease), comparisons (trend curves, subpopulations at risk) and survival among different countries. The identification of these indicators will improve the reporting of methodologies used in developing countries and will allow us to evaluate improvements in public health related to breast cancer.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Developing Countries; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Survival Rate
PubMed: 28492725
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2017(04)09 -
BMC Geriatrics Feb 2014The Timed Up and Go test (TUG) is a commonly used screening tool to assist clinicians to identify patients at risk of falling. The purpose of this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The Timed Up and Go test (TUG) is a commonly used screening tool to assist clinicians to identify patients at risk of falling. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the overall predictive value of the TUG in community-dwelling older adults.
METHODS
A literature search was performed to identify all studies that validated the TUG test. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, a validated tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. A TUG score of ≥13.5 seconds was used to identify individuals at higher risk of falling. All included studies were combined using a bivariate random effects model to generate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity at ≥13.5 seconds. Heterogeneity was assessed using the variance of logit transformed sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review and 10 studies were included in meta-analysis. The TUG test was found to be more useful at ruling in rather than ruling out falls in individuals classified as high risk (>13.5 sec), with a higher pooled specificity (0.74, 95% CI 0.52-0.88) than sensitivity (0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.57). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the TUG score is not a significant predictor of falls (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p = 0.05).
CONCLUSION
The Timed Up and Go test has limited ability to predict falls in community dwelling elderly and should not be used in isolation to identify individuals at high risk of falls in this setting.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Geriatric Assessment; Humans; Mass Screening; Predictive Value of Tests; Residence Characteristics; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 24484314
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2318-14-14 -
Body Image Sep 2016Our aim was to systematically review the prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) in a variety of settings. Weighted prevalence estimate and 95% confidence intervals... (Review)
Review
Our aim was to systematically review the prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) in a variety of settings. Weighted prevalence estimate and 95% confidence intervals in each study were calculated. The weighted prevalence of BDD in adults in the community was estimated to be 1.9%; in adolescents 2.2%; in student populations 3.3%; in adult psychiatric inpatients 7.4%; in adolescent psychiatric inpatients 7.4%; in adult psychiatric outpatients 5.8%; in general cosmetic surgery 13.2%; in rhinoplasty surgery 20.1%; in orthognathic surgery 11.2%; in orthodontics/cosmetic dentistry settings 5.2%; in dermatology outpatients 11.3%; in cosmetic dermatology outpatients 9.2%; and in acne dermatology clinics 11.1%. Women outnumbered men in the majority of settings but not in cosmetic or dermatological settings. BDD is common in some psychiatric and cosmetic settings but is poorly identified.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Body Dysmorphic Disorders; Body Image; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatology; Female; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Medicine; Middle Aged; Referral and Consultation; Rhinoplasty; Surgery, Plastic; Young Adult
PubMed: 27498379
DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.07.003 -
PloS One 2017Although cervical cancer is largely preventable through screening, detection and treatment of precancerous abnormalities, it remains one of the top causes of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although cervical cancer is largely preventable through screening, detection and treatment of precancerous abnormalities, it remains one of the top causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality globally.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review is to understand the evidence of the effect of cervical cancer education compared to control conditions on cervical cancer screening rates in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer. We also sought to understand the effect of provider recommendations for screening to eligible women on cervical cancer screening (CCS) rates compared to control conditions in eligible women population at risk of cervical cancer.
METHODS
We used the PICO (Problem or Population, Interventions, Comparison and Outcome) framework as described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook to develop our search strategy. The details of our search strategy has been described in our systematic review protocol published in the International Prospective Register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). The protocol registration number is CRD42016045605 available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?src=trip&ID=CRD42016045605. The search string was used in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Cochrane CENTRAL register of controlled trials to retrieve study reports that were screened for inclusion in this review. Our data synthesis and reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). We did a qualitative synthesis of evidence and, where appropriate, individual study effects were pooled in meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 Review Manager. The Higgins I2 was used to assess for heterogeneity in studies pooled together for overall summary effects. We did assessment of risk of bias of individual studies included and assessed risk of publication bias across studies pooled together in meta-analysis by Funnel plot.
RESULTS
Out of 3072 study reports screened, 28 articles were found to be eligible for inclusion in qualitative synthesis (5 of which were included in meta-analysis of educational interventions and 8 combined in meta-analysis of HPV self-sampling interventions), while 45 were excluded for various reasons. The use of theory-based educational interventions significantly increased CCS rates by more than double (OR, 2.46, 95% CI: 1.88, 3.21). Additionally, offering women the option of self-sampling for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing increased CCS rates by nearly 2-fold (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.22). We also found that invitation letters alone (or with a follow up phone contact), making an appointment, and sending reminders to patients who are due or overdue for screening had a significant effect on improving participation and CCS rates in populations at risk.
CONCLUSION
Our findings supports the implementation of theory-based cervical cancer educational interventions to increase women's participation in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly when targeting communities with low literacy levels. Additionally, cervical cancer screening programs should consider the option of offering women the opportunity for self-sample collection particularly when such women have not responded to previous screening invitation or reminder letters for Pap smear collection as a method of screening.
Topics: Bias; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Health Education; Humans; Mass Screening; Papillomaviridae; Patient Education as Topic; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 28873092
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183924 -
PloS One 2015Diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is clinically relevant because untreated OSA has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The STOP-Bang... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is clinically relevant because untreated OSA has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The STOP-Bang questionnaire is a validated screening tool for OSA. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of STOP-Bang for screening patients suspected of having OSA and to predict its accuracy in determining the severity of OSA in the different populations.
METHODS
A search of the literature databases was performed. Inclusion criteria were: 1) Studies that used STOP-Bang questionnaire as a screening tool for OSA in adult subjects (>18 years); 2) The accuracy of the STOP-Bang questionnaire was validated by polysomnography--the gold standard for diagnosing OSA; 3) OSA was clearly defined as apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) or respiratory disturbance index (RDI) ≥ 5; 4) Publications in the English language. The quality of the studies were explicitly described and coded according to the Cochrane Methods group on the screening and diagnostic tests.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies including 9,206 patients met criteria for the systematic review. In the sleep clinic population, the sensitivity was 90%, 94% and 96% to detect any OSA (AHI ≥ 5), moderate-to-severe OSA (AHI ≥15), and severe OSA (AHI ≥30) respectively. The corresponding NPV was 46%, 75% and 90%. A similar trend was found in the surgical population. In the sleep clinic population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 25%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability rose proportionally to 35%, 45%, 55% and 75%, respectively. In the surgical population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 15%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability increased to 25%, 35%, 45% and 65%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis confirms the high performance of the STOP-Bang questionnaire in the sleep clinic and surgical population for screening of OSA. The higher the STOP-Bang score, the greater is the probability of moderate-to-severe OSA.
Topics: Humans; Mass Screening; Polysomnography; Reproducibility of Results; Severity of Illness Index; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 26658438
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143697 -
The American Journal of Clinical... Dec 2018There is great overlap between the presentation of cachexia, sarcopenia, and malnutrition. Distinguishing between these conditions would allow for better targeted...
BACKGROUND
There is great overlap between the presentation of cachexia, sarcopenia, and malnutrition. Distinguishing between these conditions would allow for better targeted treatment for patients.
OBJECTIVES
The aim was to systematically review validated screening tools for cachexia, sarcopenia, and malnutrition in adults and, if a combined tool is absent, make suggestions for the generation of a novel screening tool.
DESIGN
A systematic search was performed in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Two reviewers performed data extraction independently. Each tool was judged for validity against a reference method. Psychometric evaluation was performed as was appraisal of the tools' ability to assess the patient against consensus definitions.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies described 22 validated screening tools. The Cachexia score (CASCO) was the only validated screening tool for cachexia and performed well against the consensus definition. Two tools assessed sarcopenia [the Short Portable Sarcopenia Measure (SPSM) and the SARC-F (Strength, Assistance with walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls)] and scored well against the 1998 Baumgartner definition. The SPSM required large amounts of equipment, and the SARC-F had a low sensitivity. Nineteen tools screened for malnutrition. The 3-Minute Nutrition Score performed best, meeting consensus definition criteria (European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism) and having a sensitivity and specificity of >80%. No tool contained all of the currently accepted components to screen for all 3 conditions. Only 3 tools were validated against cross-sectional imaging, a clinical tool that is gaining wider interest in body-composition analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
No single validated screening tool can be implemented for the simultaneous assessment of cachexia, sarcopenia, and malnutrition. The development of a tool that encompasses consensus definition criteria and directs clinicians toward the underlying diagnosis would be optimal to target treatment and improve outcomes. We propose that tool should incorporate a stepwise assessment of nutritional status, oral intake, disease status, age, muscle mass and function, and metabolic derangement.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Body Composition; Cachexia; Consensus; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; MEDLINE; Malnutrition; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Nutrition Assessment; Reproducibility of Results; Sarcopenia; Sensitivity and Specificity; Weight Loss
PubMed: 30541096
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy244 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Jul 2019Primary studies and systematic reviews provide estimates of varying accuracy for different factors in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. The aim of this study was to...
OBJECTIVE
Primary studies and systematic reviews provide estimates of varying accuracy for different factors in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. The aim of this study was to review published systematic reviews to collate evidence on the ability of available tests to predict pre-eclampsia, to identify high-value avenues for future research and to minimize future research waste in this field.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library including DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) databases, from database inception to March 2017, and bibliographies of relevant articles were searched, without language restrictions, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the prediction of pre-eclampsia. The quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool and a modified version of the QUIPS tool. We evaluated the comprehensiveness of search, sample size, tests and outcomes evaluated, data synthesis methods, predictive ability estimates, risk of bias related to the population studied, measurement of predictors and outcomes, study attrition and adjustment for confounding.
RESULTS
From 2444 citations identified, 126 reviews were included, reporting on over 90 predictors and 52 prediction models for pre-eclampsia. Around a third (n = 37 (29.4%)) of all reviews investigated solely biochemical markers for predicting pre-eclampsia, 31 (24.6%) investigated genetic associations with pre-eclampsia, 46 (36.5%) reported on clinical characteristics, four (3.2%) evaluated only ultrasound markers and six (4.8%) studied a combination of tests; two (1.6%) additional reviews evaluated primary studies investigating any screening test for pre-eclampsia. Reviews included between two and 265 primary studies, including up to 25 356 688 women in the largest review. Only approximately half (n = 67 (53.2%)) of the reviews assessed the quality of the included studies. There was a high risk of bias in many of the included reviews, particularly in relation to population representativeness and study attrition. Over 80% (n = 106 (84.1%)) summarized the findings using meta-analysis. Thirty-two (25.4%) studies lacked a formal statement on funding. The predictors with the best test performance were body mass index (BMI) > 35 kg/m , with a specificity of 92% (95% CI, 89-95%) and a sensitivity of 21% (95% CI, 12-31%); BMI > 25 kg/m , with a specificity of 73% (95% CI, 64-83%) and a sensitivity of 47% (95% CI, 33-61%); first-trimester uterine artery pulsatility index or resistance index > 90 centile (specificity 93% (95% CI, 90-96%) and sensitivity 26% (95% CI, 23-31%)); placental growth factor (specificity 89% (95% CI, 89-89%) and sensitivity 65% (95% CI, 63-67%)); and placental protein 13 (specificity 88% (95% CI, 87-89%) and sensitivity 37% (95% CI, 33-41%)). No single marker had a test performance suitable for routine clinical use. Models combining markers showed promise, but none had undergone external validation.
CONCLUSIONS
This review of reviews calls into question the need for further aggregate meta-analysis in this area given the large number of published reviews subject to the common limitations of primary predictive studies. Prospective, well-designed studies of predictive markers, preferably randomized intervention studies, and combined through individual-patient data meta-analysis are needed to develop and validate new prediction models to facilitate the prediction of pre-eclampsia and minimize further research waste in this field. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Adult; Biomarkers; Body Mass Index; Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Placenta Growth Factor; Pre-Eclampsia; Predictive Value of Tests; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prospective Studies; Pulsatile Flow; Risk Factors; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography; Uterine Artery
PubMed: 30267475
DOI: 10.1002/uog.20117 -
Chest Jul 2016Hospitalizations for aspiration pneumonia have doubled among older adults. Using a bedside water swallow test (WST) to screen for swallowing-related aspiration can be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hospitalizations for aspiration pneumonia have doubled among older adults. Using a bedside water swallow test (WST) to screen for swallowing-related aspiration can be efficient and cost-effective for preventing additional comorbidities and mortality. We evaluated screening accuracy of bedside WSTs used to identify patients at risk for dysphagia-associated aspiration.
METHODS
Sixteen online databases, Google Scholar, and known content experts through May 2015 were searched. Only prospective studies with patients ≥ 18 years of age given WST screenings validated against nasoendoscopy or videofluoroscopy were included. Data extraction used dual masked extraction and quality assessment following Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.
RESULTS
Airway response (eg, coughing/choking) with or without voice changes (eg, wet/gurgly voice quality) was used to identify aspiration during three different bedside WSTs. Pooled estimates for single sip volumes (1-5 mL) were 71% sensitive (95% CI, 63%-78%) and 90% specific (95% CI, 86%-93%). Consecutive sips of 90 to 100 mL trials were 91% sensitive (95% CI, 89%-93%) and 53% specific (95% CI, 51%-55%). Trials of progressively increasing volumes of water were 86% sensitive (95% CI, 76%-93%) and 65% specific (95% CI, 57%-73%). Airway response with voice change improved overall accuracy in identifying aspiration.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently used bedside WSTs offer sufficient, although not ideal, utility in screening for aspiration. Consecutive sips with large volumes in patients who did not present with overt airway responses or voice changes appropriately ruled out risk of aspiration. Small volumes with single sips appropriately ruled in aspiration when clinical signs were present. Combining these bedside approaches may offer improved screening accuracy, but further research is warranted.
Topics: Adult; Deglutition Disorders; Endoscopy; Humans; Mass Screening; Photofluorography; Pneumonia, Aspiration; Point-of-Care Testing; Respiratory Aspiration; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 27102184
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.059