Dataset Information

There are no randomized controlled trials that support the United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline on screening for depression in primary care: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening adults for depression in primary care settings when staff-assisted depression management programs are available. This recommendation, however, is based on evidence from depression management programs conducted with patients already identified as depressed, even though screening is intended to identify depressed patients not already recognized or treated. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate whether there is evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that depression screening benefits patients in primary care, using an explicit definition of screening.

Methods

We re-evaluated RCTs included in the 2009 USPSTF evidence review on depression screening, including only trials that compared depression outcomes between screened and non-screened patients and met the following three criteria: determined patient eligibility and randomized prior to screening; excluded patients already diagnosed with a recent episode of depression or already being treated for depression; and provided the same level of depression treatment services to patients identified as depressed in the screening and non-screening trial arms. We also reviewed studies included in a recent Cochrane systematic review, but not the USPSTF review; conducted a focused search to update the USPSTF review; and reviewed trial registries.

Results

Of the nine RCTs included in the USPSTF review, four fulfilled none of three criteria for a test of depression screening, four fulfilled one of three criteria, and one fulfilled two of three criteria. There were two additional RCTs included only in the Cochrane review, and each fulfilled one of three criteria. No eligible RCTs were found via the updated review.

Conclusions

The USPSTF recommendation to screen adults for depression in primary care settings when staff-assisted depression management programs are available is not supported by evidence from any RCTs that are directly relevant to the recommendation. The USPSTF should re-evaluate this recommendation. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/14 REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (#CRD42013004276).

SUBMITTER: Thombs BD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3922694 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

There are no randomized controlled trials that support the United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline on screening for depression in primary care: a systematic review.

Thombs Brett D BD Ziegelstein Roy C RC Roseman Michelle M Kloda Lorie A LA Ioannidis John P A JP

BMC medicine 20140128

<h4>Background</h4>The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening adults for depression in primary care settings when staff-assisted depression management programs are available. This recommendation, however, is based on evidence from depression management programs conducted with patients already identified as depressed, even though screening is intended to identify depressed patients not already recognized or treated. The objective of this systematic review was t ...[more]

PMID: 24472580

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 2015, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended targeted screening for prediabetes and diabetes (dysglycemia) in adults who are aged 40 to 70 y old and overweight or obese. Given increasing prevalence of dysglycemia at younger ages and lower body weight, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities, we sought to determine whether the current screening criteria may fail to identify some high-risk population subgroups.Methods and findingsWe investigated the performance of the 2015 USPSTF screening recommendation in detecting dysglycemia among US community health center patients. A retrospective analysis of electronic health record (EHR) data from 50,515 adult primary care patients was conducted. Longitudinal EHR data were collected in six health centers in the Midwest and Southwest. Patients with a first office visit between 2008 and 2010 were identified and followed for up to 3 y through 2013. We excluded patients who had dysglycemia at baseline and those with fewer than two office visits during the follow-up period. The exposure of interest was eligibility for screening according to the 2015 USPSTF criteria. The primary outcome was development of dysglycemia during follow-up, determined by: (1) laboratory results (fasting/2-h postload/random glucose ≥ 100/140/200 mg/dL [5.55/7.77/11.10 mmol/L] or hemoglobin A1C ≥ 5.7% [39 mmol/mol]); (2) diagnosis codes for prediabetes or type 2 diabetes; or (3) antidiabetic medication order. At baseline, 18,846 (37.3%) participants were aged ≥40 y, 33,537 (66.4%) were overweight or obese, and 39,061 (77.3%) were racial/ethnic minorities (34.6% Black, 33.9% Hispanic/Latino, and 8.7% Other). Overall, 29,946 (59.3%) patients had a glycemic test within 3 y of follow-up, and 8,478 of them developed dysglycemia. Only 12,679 (25.1%) patients were eligible for screening according to the 2015 USPSTF criteria, which demonstrated the following sensitivity and specificity (95% CI): 45.0% (43.9%-46.1%) and 71.9% (71.3%-72.5%), respectively. Racial/ethnic minorities were significantly less likely to be eligible for screening yet had higher odds of developing dysglycemia than whites (odds ratio [95% CI]: Blacks 1.24 [1.09-1.40]; Hispanics 1.46 [1.30-1.64]; and Other 1.33 [1.16-1.54]). In addition, the screening criteria had lower sensitivity in all racial/ethnic minority groups compared to whites. Limitations of this study include the ascertainment of dysglycemia only among patients with available test results and findings that may not be generalizable at the population level.ConclusionsTargeted diabetes screening based on new USPSTF criteria may detect approximately half of adult community health center patients with undiagnosed dysglycemia and proportionately fewer racial/ethnic minorities than whites. Future research is needed to estimate the performance of these screening criteria in population-based samples.

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate early consequences of 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations for decreased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate biopsy characteristics and prostate cancer presentation.Materials and methodsA single tertiary-care institution, multisurgeon, prospectively maintained database was queried for patients undergoing prostate biopsy from October 2005 to September 2016. Patient demographics, biopsy characteristics, and extent of disease were reported. Patient cohorts before and after USPSTF recommendations were compared using two-sample t test, Chi-square test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test with significance at P < 0.05.ResultsA total of 2,000 patients were analyzed, including 1,440 patients before and 560 patients after USPSTF recommendations. Following the recommendations, patients had higher prebiopsy PSA (5.90 vs. 6.70, P < 0.001). Overall, 817 (40.9%) patients had prostate cancer detected at biopsy with an increase from 37.0% before to 50.8% after (P < 0.001). Biopsies detected less low-risk Gleason ≤6 prostate cancer (47.4% vs. 41.1%) and more intermediate-risk Gleason 7 cancer (30.9% vs. 39.7%), with comparable findings of high-risk Gleason ≥8 cancer (21.7% vs. 19.2%), P = 0.042. In addition, greater percentage of core involvement (P < 0.001) was seen. At the time of diagnosis, extraprostatic extension identified by pelvic imaging increased from 12.6% to 18.9%, P = 0.039, with a trend toward lymph node positivity (1.1% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.078). Of those with metastatic disease, bony involvement occurred more often (1.7% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.041).ConclusionsAfter 2012 USPSTF guidelines, patients presented with higher PSA with prostate cancer were detected more frequently. More adverse, pathologic prostate cancer features were found on biopsy with the extent of disease implicating locally advanced/metastatic disease. These findings should be considered when counseling patients about prostate cancer screening importance.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review is an update of evidence since the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on breast cancer screening.PurposeTo determine the effectiveness of mammography screening in decreasing breast cancer mortality among average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years and 70 years or older, the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and breast self-examination, and the harms of screening.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2008), MEDLINE (January 2001 to December 2008), reference lists, and Web of Science searches for published studies and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium for screening mammography data.Study selectionRandomized, controlled trials with breast cancer mortality outcomes for screening effectiveness, and studies of various designs and multiple data sources for harms.Data extractionRelevant data were abstracted, and study quality was rated by using established criteria.Data synthesisMammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% for women aged 39 to 49 years (relative risk, 0.85 [95% credible interval, 0.75 to 0.96]; 8 trials). Data are lacking for women aged 70 years or older. Radiation exposure from mammography is low. Patient adverse experiences are common and transient and do not affect screening practices. Estimates of overdiagnosis vary from 1% to 10%. Younger women have more false-positive mammography results and additional imaging but fewer biopsies than older women. Trials of clinical breast examination are ongoing; trials for breast self-examination showed no reductions in mortality but increases in benign biopsy results.LimitationStudies of older women, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging are lacking.ConclusionMammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality for women aged 39 to 69 years; data are insufficient for older women. False-positive mammography results and additional imaging are common. No benefit has been shown for clinical breast examination or breast self-examination.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2016 colorectal cancer screening recommendations.ObjectiveTo provide updated model-based estimates of the benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies and to identify strategies that may provide an efficient balance of life-years gained (LYG) from screening and colonoscopy burden to inform the USPSTF.Design, setting, and participantsComparative modeling study using 3 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer screening in a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old US individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer.ExposuresScreening from ages 45, 50, or 55 years to ages 70, 75, 80, or 85 years with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy alone or with FIT, computed tomography colonography, or colonoscopy. All persons with an abnormal noncolonoscopy screening test result were assumed to undergo follow-up colonoscopy. Screening intervals varied by test. Full adherence with all procedures was assumed.Main outcome and measuresEstimated LYG relative to no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies (burden), number of complications from screening (harms), and balance of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios). Efficient strategies were those estimated to require fewer additional colonoscopies per additional LYG relative to other strategies.ResultsEstimated LYG from screening strategies ranged from 171 to 381 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden ranged from 624 to 6817 per 1000 individuals, and screening complications ranged from 5 to 22 per 1000 individuals. Among the 49 strategies that were efficient options with all 3 models, 41 specified screening beginning at age 45. No single age to end screening was predominant among the efficient strategies, although the additional LYG from continuing screening after age 75 were generally small. With the exception of a 5-year interval for computed tomography colonography, no screening interval predominated among the efficient strategies for each modality. Among the strategies highlighted in the 2016 USPSTF recommendation, lowering the age to begin screening from 50 to 45 years was estimated to result in 22 to 27 additional LYG, 161 to 784 additional colonoscopies, and 0.1 to 2 additional complications per 1000 persons (ranges are across screening strategies, based on mean estimates across models). Assuming full adherence, screening outcomes and efficient strategies were similar by sex and race and across 3 scenarios for population risk of colorectal cancer.Conclusions and relevanceThis microsimulation modeling analysis suggests that screening for colorectal cancer with stool tests, endoscopic tests, or computed tomography colonography starting at age 45 years provides an efficient balance of colonoscopy burden and life-years gained.

Dataset Information

There are no randomized controlled trials that support the United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline on screening for depression in primary care: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

There are no randomized controlled trials that support the United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline on screening for depression in primary care: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets