In a prospective cohort study 8466 women attending routine cervical cancer screening were recruited. Colposcopy was performed on women with any degree of atypia on cytology and/or a positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-DNA test (HC2; Hybrid Capture 2 r ), and for a randomly selected sample of 3.4% women with negative findings on both. Quality control included reviews of cytology, histology, colposcopy images and retesting of samples with polymerase chain reaction. Test diagnostic performances were based on 7908 women who had complete baseline and follow-up results. Routine histology identified 86 women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2 þ ), which was confirmed by review histology in only 46 cases. Sensitivity of routine cytology for the detection of CIN2 þ was 43.5%, with a specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.0, 11.4 and 99.7%, respectively. Sensitivity of the HC2 test for the detection of CIN2 þ was 97.8%, with a specificity, PPV and NPV, of 95.3, 10.9 and 100%, respectively. No high-grade neoplasia was detected in the randomly selected control group. A negative HPVtest result, even in combination with a positive Papanicolaou (Pap) result, virtually excluded any risk of underlying high-grade disease, but this was not the case for a negative Pap result. These data show that HPV testing is of value for the detection or exclusion of prevalent CIN in a routine cervical cancer-screening setting and could be used for further risk classification of women for follow-up management.

The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) is an international collaboration of public health institutes and universities which has been funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) since 2012. Main objective is to define a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in the field of public health, with particular focus on infectious disease prevention and control. As part of the peer review process, an international expert meeting was held on 13-1 4 June 2013 in Berlin. Participants were members of the PRECEPT team and selected experts from national public health institutes, World Health Organization (WHO), and academic institutions. The aim of the meeting was to discuss the draft framework and its application to two examples from infectious disease prevention and control. This article introduces the draft PRECEPT framework and reports on the meeting, its structure, most relevant discussions and major conclusions

BackgroundThe Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) was initiated and is being funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to define a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence and strength of recommendations in the field of public health, with emphasis on infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control. One of the first steps was to review existing quality appraisal tools (QATs) for individual research studies of various designs relevant to this area, using a question-based approach.MethodsThrough team discussions and expert consultations, we identified 20 relevant types of public health questions, which were grouped into six domains, i.e. characteristics of the pathogen, burden of disease, diagnosis, risk factors, intervention, and implementation of intervention. Previously published systematic reviews were used and supplemented by expert consultation to identify suitable QATs. Finally, a matrix was constructed for matching questions to study designs suitable to address them and respective QATs. Key features of each of the included QATs were then analyzed, in particular in respect to its intended use, types of questions and answers, presence/absence of a quality score, and if a validation was performed.ResultsIn total we identified 21 QATs and 26 study designs, and matched them. Four QATs were suitable for experimental quantitative study designs, eleven for observational quantitative studies, two for qualitative studies, three for economic studies, one for diagnostic test accuracy studies, and one for animal studies. Included QATs consisted of six to 28 items. Six of the QATs had a summary quality score. Fourteen QATs had undergone at least one validation procedure.ConclusionsThe results of this methodological study can be used as an inventory of potentially relevant questions, appropriate study designs and QATs for researchers and authorities engaged with evidence-based decision-making in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control.

Decisions in public health should be based on the best available evidence, reviewed and appraised using a rigorous and transparent methodology. The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) defined a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control that takes different domains and question types into consideration. The methodology rates evidence in four domains: disease burden, risk factors, diagnostics and intervention. The framework guiding it has four steps going from overarching questions to an evidence statement. In step 1, approaches for identifying relevant key areas and developing specific questions to guide systematic evidence searches are described. In step 2, methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews is provided; 15 study quality appraisal tools are proposed and an algorithm is given for matching a given study design with a tool. In step 3, a standardised evidence-grading scheme using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology is provided, whereby findings are documented in evidence profiles.Step 4 consists of preparing a narrative evidence summary. Users of this framework should be able to evaluate and grade scientific evidence from the four domains in a transparent and reproducible way.

929 studies were identified. Three meta-analyses, 15 studies investigating malformations, and 12 studies analyzing imprinting disorders were included. The risk of malformation was not significantly different in nine studies comparing ICSI versus IVF. Two meta-analyses and three of eight cohort studies and retrospective analysis showed significantly more severe malformations after assisted reproduction than after natural conception. The remaining five studies displayed no significant results. Current evidence does not show a higher risk of major malformations in the offspring resulting from the use of ICSI compared to IVF. However, there is evidence that both techniques increase the risk for major malformations considerably, compared to natural conception, and further research is needed. The validity of the results is low since the studies were heterogeneous and the cohorts used in the studies had limited comparability.