Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process
- PMID: 11306229
- DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00261-6
Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process
Abstract
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF/Task Force) represents one of several efforts to take a more evidence-based approach to the development of clinical practice guidelines. As methods have matured for assembling and reviewing evidence and for translating evidence into guidelines, so too have the methods of the USPSTF. This paper summarizes the current methods of the third USPSTF, supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and two of the AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs). The Task Force limits the topics it reviews to those conditions that cause a large burden of suffering to society and that also have available a potentially effective preventive service. It focuses its reviews on the questions and evidence most critical to making a recommendation. It uses analytic frameworks to specify the linkages and key questions connecting the preventive service with health outcomes. These linkages, together with explicit inclusion criteria, guide the literature searches for admissible evidence. Once assembled, admissible evidence is reviewed at three strata: (1) the individual study, (2) the body of evidence concerning a single linkage in the analytic framework, and (3) the body of evidence concerning the entire preventive service. For each stratum, the Task Force uses explicit criteria as general guidelines to assign one of three grades of evidence: good, fair, or poor. Good or fair quality evidence for the entire preventive service must include studies of sufficient design and quality to provide an unbroken chain of evidence-supported linkages, generalizable to the general primary care population, that connect the preventive service with health outcomes. Poor evidence contains a formidable break in the evidence chain such that the connection between the preventive service and health outcomes is uncertain. For services supported by overall good or fair evidence, the Task Force uses outcomes tables to help categorize the magnitude of benefits, harms, and net benefit from implementation of the preventive service into one of four categories: substantial, moderate, small, or zero/negative. The Task Force uses its assessment of the evidence and magnitude of net benefit to make a recommendation, coded as a letter: from A (strongly recommended) to D (recommend against). It gives an I recommendation in situations in which the evidence is insufficient to determine net benefit. The third Task Force and the EPCs will continue to examine a variety of methodologic issues and document work group progress in future communications.
Republished in
-
REPRINT OF: Current Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: A Review of the Process.Am J Prev Med. 2020 Mar;58(3):316-331. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.001. Am J Prev Med. 2020. PMID: 32087860
Similar articles
-
REPRINT OF: Current Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: A Review of the Process.Am J Prev Med. 2020 Mar;58(3):316-331. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.001. Am J Prev Med. 2020. PMID: 32087860
-
Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services.Ann Fam Med. 2023 Mar-Apr;21(2):165-171. doi: 10.1370/afm.2946. Ann Fam Med. 2023. PMID: 36973047 Free PMC article.
-
Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit.Ann Intern Med. 2007 Dec 18;147(12):871-5. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-12-200712180-00007. Ann Intern Med. 2007. PMID: 18087058
-
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: an evidence-based prevention resource for nurse practitioners.J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2009 Jun;21(6):301-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2009.00410.x. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2009. PMID: 19527308 Review.
-
Screening for primary hypertension in children and adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.Pediatrics. 2013 Nov;132(5):907-14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-2864. Epub 2013 Oct 7. Pediatrics. 2013. PMID: 24101758 Review.
Cited by
-
An evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs).PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053536. Epub 2013 Jan 14. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23341949 Free PMC article.
-
Socioeconomic disadvantage as a social determinant of teen childbearing in the U.S.Public Health Rep. 2013 Mar-Apr;128 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):5-22. doi: 10.1177/00333549131282S102. Public Health Rep. 2013. PMID: 23450881 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Interventions to promote breast-feeding: applying the evidence in clinical practice.CMAJ. 2004 Mar 16;170(6):976-8. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1031197. CMAJ. 2004. PMID: 15023925 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Meta-analysis on the Effectiveness of Xylitol in Caries Prevention.J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2022 Apr 8;12(2):133-138. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_164_21. eCollection 2022 Mar-Apr. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2022. PMID: 35462747 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy as a novel management of diabetic foot ulcers: an overview of systematic reviews.J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2019 Nov 25;18(2):625-641. doi: 10.1007/s40200-019-00447-6. eCollection 2019 Dec. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2019. PMID: 31890688 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials