Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.
By R. Harris, Mark Helfand, Steven H. Woolf, K. Lohr, C. Mulrow, S. Teutsch, D. Atkins. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2001
1,796 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce2d38350ef4dad58589ac3de3cdaad1645818a8
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Health Professions
- L. Mcfarland
- David W. Bates
- Mark Helfand
- Steven H. Woolf
- M. Petticrew
- Russell E. Glasgow
- Karen M. Emmons
In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Citations in the corpus
- Burnout prevention: a review of intervention programs. (2010, background): “Furthermore, 50% of all combined interventions had the highest level of evidence [19].”
- Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2002, methodology): “We used predefined criteria developed by the third USPSTF to assess the internal validity of each study (Appendix Table 1) (9).”
- Screening for Dementia in Primary Care: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2003, methodology): “We graded the quality of the included articles using criteria developed by the USPSTF Methods Work Group.31 In all cases, we accepted either single studies or systematic reviews that addressed the key question, met eligibility criteria, and were rated of at least fair quality.”
- Neurological Complications After Regional Anesthesia: Contemporary Estimates of Risk (2007, background): “The quality of evidence score (Appendix) (35) for all 32 studies included in this review was grade II-2.”
- The prevalence and incidence of coronary heart disease is significantly increased in periodontitis: a meta-analysis. (2007, background): “internal validity of the individual studies included in the metaanalysis.(8) Studies were rated in 3 categories (“good,” “fair,””
- Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. (2007, background): “The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) took the approach a step further recognizing that decision-makers require information not only on the rigor of the research design but also on the magnitude of the net benefit in support of a particular technology or health service [18].”
- Screening for Depression in Adults: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2002, methodology): “Regarding whether interventions for those at risk reduce suicide attempts or completions, the poor generalizability of the studies makes the overall strength of evidence fair, at best, while the results are mixed ( 25 ).”
- Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. (2003, methodology): “The scheme incorporates features of existing frameworks and recommendations for evaluating and synthesizing evidence.(25-31) We included articles with a minimum level 3 study design (observational studies with controls) and level 2 outcomes (surrogate clinical outcomes).”
- Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. (2004, background): “... to evaluate the strength of recommendation of a body of evidence; (3) allow authors to rate the level of evidence for an individual study; (4) be comprehensive and allow authors to evaluate studies of screening, diagnosis, therapy, prevention, and prognosis; (5) be easy to use and not too time-c”
- Behavioral Counseling Interventions in Primary Care To Reduce Risky/Harmful Alcohol Use by Adults: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2004, methodology): “Relevant trials were identified from searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials, PsycINFO, HealthSTAR, and CINAHL databases (1994 to April 2002), reference lists of systematic reviews, the USPSTF 1996 recommendation (34), and experts.”