Search

The major goal of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is to provide a reliable and accurate source of evidence-based recommendations on a wide range of preventive services. In this article, the USPSTF updates and reviews the process by which it evaluates evidence, determines the certainty and magnitude of net benefit, and gives a final letter grade to recommendations. Because direct evidence about prevention is often unavailable, the Task Force usually considers indirect evidence. To guide its selection of indirect evidence, a 'chain of evidence' is constructed within an analytic framework. The Task Force examines evidence of various research designs that addresses the key questions within the framework. New terms have been added to describe the USPSTF's judgment about the evidence for each key question: 'convincing,' 'adequate,' or 'inadequate.' For increased clarity, the USPSTF has changed its description of overall evidence of net benefit for the preventive service from 'good,' 'fair,' or 'poor' quality to 'high,' 'moderate,' or 'low' certainty. This rating considers the extent to which an uninterrupted chain of evidence exists across the analytic framework. Individual studies will continue to be judged as being of 'good,' 'fair,' or 'poor' quality. Using outcomes tables, the USPSTF estimates the magnitude of benefits and the magnitude of harms, and synthesizes them into an estimate of the magnitude of net benefit. Although some judgment is required at all steps, the USPSTF strives to make the process as explicit and transparent as possible. The USPSTF anticipates that its methods for making evidence-based recommendations will continue to evolve.

Background: Cerebrovascular disease is the third leading cause of death in the United States. The proportion of all strokes attributable to previously asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (CAS) is low. In 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that evidence was insufficient to recommend for or against screening of asymptomatic persons for CAS by using physical examination or carotid ultrasonography. Purpose: To examine the evidence of benefits and harms of screening asymptomatic patients with duplex ultrasonography and treatment with carotid endarterectomy for CAS. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane Library (search dates January 1994 to April 2007), recent systematic reviews, reference lists of retrieved articles, and suggestions from experts. Study Selection: English-language randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for CAS; RCTs of carotid endarterectomy versus medical treatment; systematic reviews of screening tests; and observational studies of harms from carotid endarterectomy were selected to answer the following questions: Is there direct evidence that screening with ultrasonography for asymptomatic CAS reduces strokes? What is the accuracy of ultrasonography to detect CAS? Does intervention with carotid endarterectomy reduce morbidity or mortality? Does screening or carotid endarterectomy result in harm? Data Extraction: All studies were reviewed, abstracted, and rated for quality by using predefined Task Force criteria. Data Synthesis: No RCTs of screening for CAS have been done. According to systematic reviews, the sensitivity of ultrasonography is approximately 94% and the specificity is approximately 92%. Treatment of CAS in selected patients by selected surgeons could lead to an approximately 5-percentage point absolute reduction in strokes over 5 years. Thirty-day stroke and death rates from carotid endarterectomy vary from 2.7% to 4.7% in RCTs; higher rates have been reported in observational studies (up to 6.7%). Limitations: Evidence is inadequate to stratify people into categories of risk for clinically important CAS. The RCTs of carotid endarterectomy versus medical treatment were conducted in selected populations with selected surgeons. Conclusion: The actual stroke reduction from screening asymptomatic patients and treatment with carotid endarterectomy is unknown; the benefit is limited by a low overall prevalence of treatable disease in the general asymptomatic population and harms from treatment.

Since 2001, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has worked to refine its methods of evidence review and assessment and to create more usable documents in response to clinicians' needs. These changes have resulted in a revised grading system, as well as a new format and new language for the recommendation statement. This paper focuses on the changes to and the new look of the USPSTF recommendation statement. The new recommendation statement comprises 9 sections. Important changes include standardization of the format of the summary statement to specify what service is being recommended in what population; standardization of the headings in the rationale section; a change in the wording of the grade C recommendation and the I statement; and a new section, called 'Other Considerations,' in which salient issues related to cost-effectiveness, mandates, and other implementation issues are described.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent panel that has provided the gold standard for evidence-based guidelines in prevention for the past 2 decades, continuously refines its methodology. To keep up with the evolving field of evidence-based medicine and to update recommendations in a timely, efficient, and transparent manner, the USPSTF has developed new methods for evidence reviews and recommendation development. This article summarizes the most recent changes in the recommendation development process, including how the USPSTF solicits and prioritizes topics for review, updates evidence reviews and recommendations, and communicates with its audience.

Evidence-based answer Fluoxetine is the only selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat depression in children 8 years of age and older; [...]

Evidence-based answer Selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) appear to be the safest, given current data. Major safety concerns--prompting a US Food and Drug administration (FDA) black box label warning--have been raised [...]

Trivedi DP, Doll R, Khaw KT. Effect of four monthly oral vitamin D3 (cholecaciferol) supplementation on fractures and mortality in men and women living in the community: randomised double blind [...]