Search

Background: An up-to-date systematic review on the long-term benefits of one-time abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening in men with ultrasound is required as new evidence is available. This report was produced for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to provide evidence on screening for AAA with ultrasound. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the short-term (3-5 years of follow-up) vs long-term (13-15 years of follow-up) effectiveness of one-time screening for AAA in men., Methods: This systematic review considered studies from the most recent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review on AAA screening and passed through the screening process with citations identified in our search up to April 2017 (PROSPERO registration #CRD42015019047)., Results: Based on pooled estimates from four population-based randomized controlled trials with moderate-quality evidence, one-time AAA screening in men showed significant reductions in AAA-related mortality and AAA rupture rate, with a reduction of 43% for AAA-related mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.72; number needed to screen [NNS], 796) and 48% for AAA rupture rate (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.79; NNS, 606) in short-term follow-up and a reduction of 34% for AAA-related mortality (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.93; NNS, 311) and 35% for AAA rupture rate (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.82; NNS, 264) in long-term follow-up. The effect on all-cause mortality was nonsignificant (P = .14) for short-term follow-up but marginally significant for long-term follow-up (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00; P = .03; NNS, 164). One-time AAA screening in men was also associated with a significant increase in the number of elective AAA-related procedures and a subsequent decrease in the number of emergency AAA procedures and 30-day postoperative mortality at both short-term and long-term follow-ups. We found no differences for one-time AAA screening in 30-day postoperative mortality due to elective and emergency operations compared with control groups., Conclusions: Population-based one-time screening for AAA with ultrasound in asymptomatic men aged 65 years and older remains beneficial during the longer term after screening has ceased, with significant reductions in AAA mortality and AAA rupture rate, and hence avoids unnecessary AAA-related deaths. The sensitivity analyses also showed that the benefits of AAA screening were more pronounced in men at a mean age of <70 years with a relatively lower prevalence of AAA than in men at a mean age of >70 years with a relatively higher prevalence of AAA. Future research should explore the long-term benefits of a targeted AAA screening approach based on risk factors such as age, sex, smoking status, family history, aortic diameter, and baseline risk of rupture., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of the study was to test the overall effectiveness of a simplified search strategy (SSS) for updating systematic reviews., Study Design and Methods: We identified nine systematic reviews undertaken by our research group for which both comprehensive and SSS updates were performed. Three relevant performance measures were estimated, that is, sensitivity, precision, and number needed to read (NNR)., Results: The update reference searches for all nine included systematic reviews identified a total of 55,099 citations that were screened resulting in final inclusion of 163 randomized controlled trials. As compared with reference search, the SSS resulted in 8,239 hits and had a median sensitivity of 83.3%, while precision and NNR were 4.5 times better. During analysis, we found that the SSS performed better for clinically focused topics, with a median sensitivity of 100% and precision and NNR 6 times better than for the reference searches. For broader topics, the sensitivity of the SSS was 80% while precision and NNR were 5.4 times better compared with reference search., Conclusion: SSS performed well for clinically focused topics and, with a median sensitivity of 100%, could be a viable alternative to a conventional comprehensive search strategy for updating this type of systematic reviews particularly considering the budget constraints and the volume of new literature being published. For broader topics, 80% sensitivity is likely to be considered too low for a systematic review update in most cases, although it might be acceptable if updating a scoping or rapid review., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This report was produced for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to provide guidelines on screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with ultrasound scan., Purpose: The aim of this systematic review is to examine the evidence on benefits and harms of AAA screening., Search Strategy: This systematic review considered studies from the most recent United States Preventive Services Task Force review on AAA screening and passed through the screening process with citations identified in our search up to April 2015 (PROSPERO Registration #CRD42015019047)., Results: For benefits of one-time AAA screening in men compared with controls, pooled analyses from four randomized controlled trials with moderate quality evidence showed significant reductions in AAA-related mortality and AAA rupture rate up to 13 to 15 years of follow-up with 42% reduction (risk ratio [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.88; number needed to screen = 212) and 38% reduction (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.86; number needed to screen = 200), respectively. The effect of on all-cause mortality was marginally significant for longer follow-up. The Chichester trial examined the benefits of one-time AAA screening in women and found no significant differences between screening and control arms for up to 10 years of follow-up (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). For consequences of one-time AAA screening in men compared with controls, there was a significant increase in the total number of AAA-related procedures over a follow-up of 13 to 15 years (2.16 times more likely) compared with controls. For harms of one-time AAA screening, no significant differences were observed in 30-day postoperative mortality for elective and emergency operations with compared control groups. Evidence from the Multicenter Aneurysm Screening Study trial using 13-year follow-up data showed that one-time AAA screening with ultrasound scan was potentially associated with an overdiagnosis of 45% (95% CI, 42%-47%) among screen-detected men., Conclusions: Population-based screening for AAA with ultrasound scan in asymptomatic men aged 65 years and older showed statistically significant reductions in AAA-related mortality and rupture and, hence, avoids unnecessary AAA-related deaths. The current evidence showed no benefit of one-time AAA screening in woman. Limited evidence is available on the benefits of repeat AAA screening and targeted screening approaches based on risk factors for AAA. Future research should explore the differential benefits of AAA screening based on risk factors that increase risk for developing AAA., (Copyright © 2016 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To evaluate the effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in asymptomatic adults. A search was conducted of the Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A targeted search of PubMed was conducted for on-topic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis across 4 RCTs for guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening showed a reduction of 18% (risk ratio [RR], 0.82; 95% CI [CI], 0.73-0.92) and 26% (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83) in CRC mortality for the screening group compared to controls, respectively. The number needed to screen (NNS) were 377 (95% CI, 249-887) and 864 (95% CI, 672-1266) for gFOBT and FS screening, respectively. A reduction of 8% and 27% in incidence of late-stage CRC was also observed for gFOBT and FS screening, respectively, but both had no significant effect on all-cause mortality. A single RCT found that screening with immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) had no significant impact on CRC mortality (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). Screening with FS has potential harms such as perforation, major and minor bleeding, and death from the procedure or from follow-up colonoscopy. gFOBT and FS screening reduce CRC mortality and incidence of late-stage disease. The absolute effect and NNS were much more favorable for older adults (≥ 60 years), suggesting that a targeted screening approach may avoid exposing younger adults to the harms of CRC screening, from which they are unlikely to derive any significant benefit. Although there is insufficient RCT evidence on the impact of iFOBT on mortality outcomes. compared to gFOBT, this test showed higher sensitivity and comparable specificity, indicating the need to update and reevaluate the evidence in light of future high-quality research. The protocol for this systematic review have been published with PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014009777., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To identify statistical methods for harmonization, the procedures aimed at achieving the comparability of previously collected data, which could be used in the context of summary data and individual participant data meta-analysis of cognitive measures., Study Design and Setting: Environmental scan methods were used to conduct two reviews to identify (1) studies that quantitatively combined data on cognition and (2) general literature on statistical methods for data harmonization. Search results were rapidly screened to identify articles of relevance., Results: All 33 meta-analyses combining cognition measures either restricted their analyses to a subset of studies using a common measure or combined standardized effect sizes across studies; none reported their harmonization steps before producing summary effects. In the second scan, three general classes of statistical harmonization models were identified (1) standardization methods, (2) latent variable models, and (3) multiple imputation models; few publications compared methods., Conclusion: Although it is an implicit part of conducting a meta-analysis or pooled analysis, the methods used to assess inferential equivalence of complex constructs are rarely reported or discussed. Progress in this area will be supported by guidelines for the conduct and reporting of the data harmonization and integration and by evaluating and developing statistical approaches to harmonization., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: There are few well-evaluated uncomplicated community-based interventions for childhood aggression. The authors assess the impact of a community-based anger management group on child aggressive behaviors, using a randomized, controlled trial (RCT)., Method: Families with children 7 to 11 years old were recruited through advertisements and randomized (N = 123). Inclusion required parent concern about anger/aggressive behavior, RCT agreement, and a telephone behavior screen. Intervention participants were offered three parent education/skill-building group sessions, 10 weekly child group sessions, and three in-home family practice sessions. Nine groups ran from August 2002 to August 2004. Interviewers naïve to randomization collected data on all participants pre- and postgroup. Outcomes included child-rated anger and parent-rated child aggressive behavior, externalizing behavior and hostility, parent-child relationship, and parenting stress. Intent-to-treat analyses were done., Results: Pre/postoutcome comparisons indicated no significant differences between intervention versus control, with small effect sizes for most outcomes (0.27-0.29). Although not significant, the magnitude of improvement favored intervention families on all parent-rated measures., Conclusions: Overall, there was no differential impact of participating in a community-based anger management group versus control on child aggressive behaviors and other associated measures. The impact of regression to the mean, effect, and sample size estimates; child comorbidity; and programmatic and methodological issues are discussed.