Peer reviewed eScholarship.orgPowered by the California Digital Library University of California Screening for Colorectal Cancer US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement US Preventive Services Task ForceT he US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about the effectiveness of specific preventive care services for patients without obvious related signs or symptoms.It bases its recommendations on the evidence of both the benefits and harms of the service and an assessment of the balance. The USPSTF does not consider the costs of providing a service in this assessment.The USPSTF recognizes that clinical decisions involve more considerations than evidence alone. Clinicians should understand the evidence but individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation. Similarly, the USPSTF notes that policy and coverage decisions involve considerations in addition to the evidence of clinical benefits and harms. Summary of Recommendations and EvidenceThe USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer starting at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years (A recommendation) (Figure 1).The risks and benefits of different screening methods vary. See the Clinical Considerations section later in this article and the Table for details about screening strategies.The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient's overall health and prior screening history (C recommendation).• Adults in this age group who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit. IMPORTANCE Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 134 000 persons will be diagnosed with the disease, and about 49 000 will die from it. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among adults aged 65 to 74 years; the median age at death from colorectal cancer is 73 years.OBJECTIVE To update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer.EVIDENCE REVIEW The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test, the multitargeted stool DNA test, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA test in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristics of these tests for detecting adenomatous polyps, advanced adenomas based on size, or both, as well as colorectal cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a comparative modeling study to provide information on optimal starting and stopping ages and screening intervals across the different available screening methods.FINDINGS The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk, asymptomatic adults aged 50 to 75 years is of substantial net benefit. Multiple screen...

Trial-based cost-effectiveness studies have appeal because of their high internal validity and timeliness. Improving the quality and uniformity of these studies will increase their value to decision makers who consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy when making resource allocation decisions.

No abstract

Endometrial cancer risk increases substantially with long duration of unopposed estrogen use, and this increased risk persists for several years after discontinuation of estrogen. Although not statistically significant, the risk of death from endometrial cancer among unopposed estrogen users is increased, similar to the increased risk of developing the disease. Data regarding risk for endometrial cancer among estrogen plus progestin users are limited and conflicting.

No abstract

The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement).

Objective To assess correlates of glycemic control in a diverse population of children and youth with diabetes. Study design This was a cross-sectional analysis of data from a 6-center US study of diabetes in youth, including 3947 individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 552 with type 2 diabetes (T2D), using hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels to assess glycemic control. Results HbA1c levels reflecting poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 9.5%) were found in 17% of youth with T1D and in 27% of those with T2D. African-American, American Indian, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander youth with T1D were significantly more likely to have higher HbA1c levels compared with non-Hispanic white youth (with respective rates for poor glycemic control of 36%, 52%, 27%, and 26% vs 12%). Similarly poor control in these 4 racial/ethnic groups was found in youth with T2D. Longer duration of diabetes was significantly asso*ciated with poorer glycemic control in youth with T1D and T2D. Conclusions The high percentage of US youth with HbA1c levels above the target value and with poor glycemic control indicates an urgent need for effective treatment strategies to improve metabolic status in youth with diabetes.

This paper reviews publications from January 1999 to March 2001 on reproductive health topics that were self-identified as meta-analysis or were indexed as meta-analysis in MEDLINE. It sought to assess whether tests of statistical heterogeneity were done, whether the results were reported, and how a finding of significance for a test of statistical heterogeneity was handled and the results interpreted. The review identified some concerns. Tests of statistical heterogeneity were not done universally even though virtually all writers on the topic emphasize their importance. Even when done, results of these tests were not universally reported. Although the consensus appears to be that heterogeneity tests are conservative for meta-analysis of studies and a probability value of 0.10 is preferred, many meta-analyses used the conventional value of 0.05 without providing a reason. The rationale for the choice of a random or fixed effects model was not generally evident. The review also provided some positive models and some recommendations for assessing, reporting and exploring heterogeneity are made considering these models and the published recommendations of experts.