Periodic medical examination: A comparison of Canadian and American recommendations;L'examen médical périodique: Une comparaison des recommandations canadiennes et américaines

Canadian Family Physician

Volumn 52, Issue JAN., 2006, Pages 58-63

  Mavriplis, Cléo ^a,b   Thériault, Guylène ^b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; CANADA; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PERIODIC MEDICAL EXAMINATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; SOCIAL ASPECT; UNITED STATES; AGED; GENERAL PRACTICE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRIMARY PREVENTION; STANDARD;

ADULT; AGED; CANADA; FAMILY PRACTICE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PRIMARY PREVENTION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33644853917     PISSN: 0008350X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Evidence-based clinical prevention. London, Ont; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care; 1997, dernier mise à jour 2005 juin 14. Accessible à: http://www.ctfphc.org. Accédé.le 9 novembre 2005.
2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Preventive services. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville,Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; dernier raise à jour 2005 novembre 15. Accessible à: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/prevenix.htm#uspstf. Accédé le 17 novembre 2005.
3. Collège des médecins de famille du Canada. Bibliothèque: examem médicaux périodique. Mississauga, Ont:Collége des médecins de famille du Canada: 2004. Accessible à: http://www.cfpc.ca/French/CFPC/CLFM/bibperiodic/defaultasp?s=l. Accédé le 9 novembre 2005.
4. Woolf SH. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. ii: Methodology. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 1995. Accessible à: http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/pubs/guideeps/text/ii-met~1.txt. Accédé le 9 novembre 2005.
5. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: commentary on the recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Am J Prev Med 1994;10(4):187-92.
6. National Guideline Clearinghouse. NGC guideline comparison. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005. Accessible à: http://www.guideline.gv/compare/compare.aspx. Accédé le 9 novembre 2005.
7. Groulx S. La prévention chez l'adulte, une occasion à saisir an vol Méd Qué. 2005;10(5):65-73.
8. Clapperton I. La prévention pratico-pratique. Méd Qué 2005;40(5)33-9.
9. Thériault G, Mavriplis C. Examen médical périodique. Gatineau, Qué: UMF de CSSS de Gatineatu 2004.Accessible à: http://medecinefamiliale.com/umf/emc/emp_guide.htm. Accédé le 9 novembre 2005.
10. Patterson C. Sceening for visual impairment in the elderly. Ottawa, Ont: Approvisionnements et Services Canada; 1994. Accessible à: http://www.ctfphc.org/Full_Texi/Ch78full.htm. Accédé le 10 novembre 2005.
11. Cadarette SM. Jagial SB, Kreiger N, McIsaac WJ, Darlington GA, Tu JV. Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry. CMAJ 2000:162:1289-94.
12. Mauck KF, Cuddihy MT, Atkinson EJ, Melton LJ III. Use of Clinical prediction rules in detecting osteoporosis in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women. Arch intern Med 2005;165:530-6,1294.
13. UK National Screening Committee. NSC criteria for appraising the viability effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme. Accessible à: http://www.nsc.nsc.uk/uk_nsc/uk_nsc_main.htm. Accédé le 9 novembre 2005,
14. National Electronic Library for Health. National Service Frameworks. a practical aid to implementation in primary care. London. Engl. Department of Health, 2005. Accessible à: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/ PublicationsAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/ en?CONTENT_ID=4082776&chk=9K%2Bu1n. Accédé le 9 November 2005.
15. Beaulieu MD, Rivard M, Hudon E. Beaudoin C, Saucier D, Remondin M. Comparative trial of a short workshop designed to enhance appropriate use of screening tests by family physicians. CMAJ 2002;167:1241-6.
16. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000;355:129-34.
17. Green BB, Taplin SH. Breast cancer screening controversies. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003;16(3):233-41.
18. Peters SM, Jovell AJ, Garcia-Altes A, Serra-Prat M. Screening and clinical management of prostate cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001;17(2):215-21.
19. Kanis JA, Torgersom D, Cooper C. Comparison of the European and USA practice guide. lines for osteoporosis Transmission Electron Microsc 2000;11(1):28-32.
20. Burgers IS, Bailey JV, Klazinga NS, Van Der Bij AK, Grol R, Feder G; AGREE Collaboration. Inside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care 2002;25:1933-9.
21. Krahn M, Naylor CD, Basinski AS, Detsky AS. Comparison of an aggressive (U.S.) and a less aggressive (Canadian) policy for cholesterol screening and treatment. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:248-55.
22. Manna DR, Bruijnzeels MA, Mokkink HGA, Berg M. Ethnic. specific recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a first exploratory comparison between guidelines from the USA, Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:353-8.
23. Hasenfeld R, Shekelle PG. Is the methodological quality of guidelines declining in the US? Comparison of the quality of US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines with those published subsequently.Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:428-34.
24. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed literature. JAMA 1999;281:1900-5.
25. Berg AO, Allan JD. Introducing the third US preventive services task force. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(Suppl 3):3-4.
26. Saha S, Hoerger TJ, Pignone MP, Teutshch SM, Helfand M, Mandelblatt JS. The art and science of incorporating cost effectiveness into evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(Suppl 3):36-43.