Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process

CMAJ

Volumn 190, Issue 14, 2018, Pages E422-E429

  Dobrow, Mark J ^a   Hagens, Victoria ^b   Chafe, Roger ^c   Sullivan, Terrence ^a   Rabeneck, Linda ^a,b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b CANCER CARE ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CITATION ANALYSIS; CONSENSUS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL ETHICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SCREENING TEST; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; DELPHI STUDY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

CONSENSUS; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING;

EID: 85045342149     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.171154     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968.
2. Pollitt RJ. Introducing new screens: Why are we all doing different things? JInheritMetabDis2007;30:423-9.
3. Raffle AE, Gray JAM. Screening: evidence and practice. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2007.
4. McGinley L. The federal panel that opposed prostate cancer screening just changed its mind. The Washington Post 2017 Apr. 11. Available: www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/04/11/the-federal-panel-that-opposed -prostate-cancer-screening-just-changed-its-mind/?utm_term=.ebbbed54a56c (accessed 2017 Apr. 13).
5. Weeks C. What you need to know about new breast cancer screening technologies. Globe and Mail [Toronto]; 2017 Mar 29 [updated 2017 Apr. 14]. Available: www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/what-you-need-to-know-about-new-breast-cancer-screening-technologies/article34477942 (accessed 2017 Apr. 13).
6. Gill RR, Jaklitsch MT, Jacobson FL. Controversies in lung cancer screening. JAmCollRadiol2013;10:931-6.
7. Lewis MH. Newborn screening controversy: past, present, and future. JAMA Pediatr2014;168:199-200.
8. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manage 2004;42:15-29.
9. Hsu C, Sandford B. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess, Res Eval 2007;12:1-8.
10. von der Gracht HA. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2012;79:1525-36.
11. Holey EA, Feeley JL, Dixon J, et al. An exploration of the use of simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:52.
12. Cochrane AL, Holland WW. Validation of screening procedures. Br Med Bull 1971; 27:3-8.
13. Whitby LG. Screening for disease: definitions and criteria. Lancet 1974;2: 819-22.
14. Cuckle HS, Wald NJ. Principles of screening. In: Wald N, editor. Antenatal and neonatal screening. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 1984.
15. Hakama M, Chamberlain J, Day NE, et al. Evaluation of screening programmes for gynaecological cancer. Br J Cancer 1985;52:669-73.
16. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. Toronto: Little, Brown & Co.; 1985.
17. Prorok PC, Connor RJ. Screening for the early detection of cancer. Cancer Invest1986;4:225-38.
18. Health Council of the Netherlands. Committee Genetic Screening. Genetic screening. Publication No. 1994/22E. The Hague (Netherlands): Health Council; 1994. 19. Braveman P, Tarimo E. Health screening, development, and equity. J Public Health Policy 1996;17:14-27.
19. Clark RA, Reintgen DS. Principles of cancer screening. In: Reintgen DS, Clark RA, editors. Cancer screening. St. Louis (MO): Mosby Year Book Publications; 1996.
20. Parsonnet J, Axon AT. Principles of screening and surveillance. Am J Gastroen-terol 1996;91:847-9.
21. Fowler G, Austoker J. Screening. In: Detels R, Holland WW, McEwan J, et al., editors. Oxford textbook of public health. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.
22. Gray JAM. Screening: a challenge to rational thought and action. In: Scally G, editor. Progress in public health. London (UK): FT Healthcare; 1997.
23. Seymour CA, Thomason MJ, Chalmers RA, et al. Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1997;1:i-iv, 1-96.
24. Schoemaker C. The principles of screening for eating disorders. In: Van-dereycken W, Noordenbos G, editors. The prevention of eating disorders. London (UK): The Athlone Press; 1998.
25. First report of the National Screening Committee. Health Departments of the United Kingdom; 1998. Available: http://aogm.org.mo/assets/Uploads/aogm/Guidelines/NHS/National-Screening-Committee-UK-1998.pdf (accessed 2018 Mar. 21).
26. Nielsen C, Lang RS. Principles of screening. Med Clin North Am 1999;83:1323-37.
27. Prorok PC, Kramer BS, Gohagan JK. Screening theory and study design: the basics. In: Kramer B, Prorok P, editors. Cancer screening. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1999.
28. Serving the family from birth to the medical home. Newborn screening: a blueprint for the future - a call for a national agenda on state newborn screening programs. Pediatrics 2000;106:389-422.
29. Second report of the UK National Screening Committee. London (UK): UK National Screening Committee; 2000.
30. Katz DL. Clinical epidemiology & evidence-based medicine: fundamental principles of clinical reasoning & research. London (UK): Sage Publications; 2001.
31. Hanselaar AG. Criteria for organized cervical screening programs. Special emphasis on The Netherlands program. Acta Cytol 2002;46:619-29.
32. Coombs A, Jones-McLean E, Le-Petit C, et al. Technical report for the National Committee on Colorectal Cancer Screening. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2002.
33. New Zealand National Health Committee. Screening to improve health in New Zealand: criteria to assess screening programmes. Wellington (New Zealand): National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability; 2003.
34. Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme [guidance]. London (UK): National Screening Committee; 2003.
35. Harris R, Kinsinger LS. Principles of screening for cancer. In: Chang AE, Ganz PA, Hayes DF, et al. editors. Oncology: an evidence-based approach. New York: Springer; 2005.
36. Miller AB. Screening. In: Ahrens W, Pigeot I, editors. Handbook of epidemiology. Berlin (Germany): Springer; 2005.
37. Strong K, Wald N, Miller A, et al. Current concepts in screening for noncommunicable disease: World Health Organization Consultation Group report on methodology of noncommunicable disease screening. J Med Screen 2005;12:12-9.
38. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, et al. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:317-9.
39. Bryant RJ, Hamdy FC. Screening for prostate cancer: an update. Eur Urol 2008;53:37-44.
40. Lewis G, Sheringham J, Kalim K, et al. Mastering public health: a postgraduate guide to examinations and revalidations. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2008.
41. Mandel JS, Smith R. Principles of cancer screening. In: Devita VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, editors. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s cancer: principles & practice of oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008.
42. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, et al. Guiding policy decisions for genetic screening: developing a systematic and transparent approach. Public Health Genomics 2011;14:9-16.
43. Grootendorst DC, Jager KJ, Zoccali C, et al. Screening: why, when, and how. KidneyInt2009;76:694-9.
44. Harris R, Sawaya GF, Moyer VA, et al. Reconsidering the criteria for evaluating proposed screening programs: reflections from 4 current and former members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Epidemiol Rev 2011;33:20-35.
45. Martin-Moreno JM, Anttila A, von Karsa L, et al. Cancer screening and health system resilience: keys to protecting and bolstering preventive services during a financial crisis. Eur J Cancer 2012;48:2212-8.
46. Petros M. Revisiting the Wilson-Jungner criteria: How can supplemental criteria guide public health in the era of genetic screening? Genet Med 2012;14: 129-34.
47. Adriaensen WJ, Matheï C, Buntinx FJ, et al. A framework provided an outline toward the proper evaluation of potential screening strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:639-47.
48. Forman J, Coyle F, Levy-Fisch J, et al. Screening criteria: the need to deal with new developments and ethical issues in newborn metabolic screening. J Community Genet 2013;4:59-67.
49. Lewis GH, Sheringham J, Lopez Bernal J, et al. Mastering public health: a postgraduate guide to examinations and revalidations. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2014.
50. UK National Screening Committee. Review of the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC): recommendations. London (UK): Public Health England; 2015.
51. Bosch-Capblanch X, Lavis JN, Lewin S, et al. Guidance for evidence-informed Policies about health systems: rationale for and challenges of guidance development. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001185.
52. Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemieux-Charles L, et al. The impact of context on evidence utilization: A framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations. Soc Sci Med 2006;63:1811-24.
53. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al.; AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. CMAJ 2010;182:E839-42.
54. Boeker M, Vach M, Motschall E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:131.