Search

Simple Summary: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant health issue, being the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Most CRC cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage, especially in symptomatic patients, highlighting the need for effective early detection methods. While CRC is more prevalent in developed countries, its impact is felt globally and is influenced by factors such as diet, environment, and genetics. This study aims to review existing research on the effectiveness of various CRC screening methods. Early detection through screening significantly improves survival rates, making it crucial for better health outcomes. The review evaluates different screening tools and their cost-effectiveness and identifies populations that would benefit most from targeted screening. By improving screening strategies, the study aims to enhance early diagnosis and reduce CRC mortality rates, ultimately improving patient prognosis and quality of life. Colorectal cancer (CRC) has the highest mortality rate among men and is the second highest among women under fifty, with incidence and mortality rates rising in younger populations. Studies indicate that up to one-third of patients diagnosed before fifty have a family history or genetic factors, highlighting the need for earlier screening. Contrariwise, diagnosis in healthy subjects through screening strategies enables early-stage detection of the tumor and better clinical outcomes. In recent years, mortality rates of CRC in Western countries have been on a steady decline, which is largely attributed to widespread screening programs and advancements in treatment modalities. Indeed, early detection through screening significantly improves prognosis, with stark differences in survival rates between localized and metastatic disease. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the existing literature, delving into the performance and efficacy of various CRC screening strategies. It navigates through available screening tools, evaluating their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The discussion extends to delineating target populations for screening, emphasizing the importance of tailored approaches for individuals at heightened risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AimsTo develop a means to measure the quality of care provided to women treated for urinary incontinence (UI) through the development of quality-of-care indicators (QIs).MethodsWe performed an extensive literature review to develop a set of potential quality indicators for the management of UI. QIs were modeled after those previously described in the Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) project. Nine experts ranked the indicators on a nine-point scale for both validity and feasibility. We analyzed preliminary rankings of each indicator using the RAND Appropriateness Method. A forum was then held in which each indicator was thoroughly discussed by the panelists as a group, after which the indicators were rated a second time individually using the same nine-point scale.ResultsQIs were developed that addressed screening, diagnosis, work-up, and both non-surgical and surgical management. Areas of controversy included whether routine screening for incontinence should be performed, whether urodynamics should be performed before non-surgical management is initiated, and whether cystoscopy should be part of the pre-operative work-up of uncomplicated stress incontinence. Following the expert panel discussion, 27 of 40 potential indicators were determined to be valid for UI with a median score of at least seven on a nine-point scale.ConclusionsWe identified 27 quality indicators for the care of women with UI. Once these QIs are pilot-tested for feasibility, they will be applied on a larger scale to measure the quality of care provided to women with UI in the United States.