Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb 24;108(6):djv436.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv436. Print 2016 Jun.

Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review

Affiliations

Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review

Tanner J Caverly et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. .

Abstract

Background: Cancer prevention and screening guidelines are ideally suited to the task of providing high-quality benefit-harm information that informs clinical practice. We systematically examined how US guidelines present benefits and harms for recommended cancer prevention and screening interventions.

Methods: We included cancer screening and prevention recommendations from: 1) the United States Preventive Services Task Force, 2) the American Cancer Society, 3) the American College of Physicians, 4) the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and 5) other US guidelines within the National Guidelines Clearinghouse. Searches took place November 20, 2013, and January 1, 2014, and updates were reviewed through July 1, 2015. Two coders used an abstraction form to code information about benefits and harms presented anywhere within a guideline document, including appendices. The primary outcome was each recommendation's benefit-harm "comparability" rating, based on how benefits and harms were presented. Recommendations presenting absolute effects for both benefits and harms received a "comparable" rating. Other recommendations received an incomplete rating or an asymmetric rating based on prespecified criteria.

Results: Fifty-five recommendations for using interventions to prevent or detect breast, prostate, colon, cervical, and lung cancer were identified among 32 guidelines. Thirty point nine percent (n = 17) received a comparable rating, 14.5% (n = 8) received an incomplete rating, and 54.5% (n = 30) received an asymmetric rating.

Conclusions: Sixty-nine percent of cancer prevention and screening recommendation statements either did not quantify benefits and harms or presented them in an asymmetric manner. Improved presentation of benefits and harms in guidelines would better ensure that clinicians and patients have access to the information required for making informed decisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Proportion of 55 positive recommendations presenting benefit and harm information.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Proportion with asymmetric, incomplete, and comparable ratings among 55 positive recommendations for cancer screening & prevention services. Recommendations received a comparable rating if absolute effects were presented for both benefits and harms, an incomplete rating if the magnitude of benefits and harms were not able to be compared (both presented but neither quantified), and an asymmetric rating if the presentation was uneven.

Comment in

References

    1. Eddy DM. Variations in physician practice: the role of uncertainty. Health Aff (Millwood). 1984;3(2):74–89. - PubMed
    1. Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, et al. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(3):CD006776. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340(mar23 1):c332–c332. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(10):781–788. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms