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
-
Low-Dose Aspirin for the Prevention of Morbidity and Mortality From Preeclampsia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014 Apr. Report No.: 14-05207-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014 Apr. Report No.: 14-05207-EF-1. PMID: 24783270 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Screening and Interventions for Childhood Overweight [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2005 Jul. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2005 Jul. PMID: 20722132 Free Books & Documents. Review.
Cited by
-
Top-funded companies offering digital health interventions for the prevention and treatment of depression: a systematic market analysis.Arch Public Health. 2024 Nov 4;82(1):200. doi: 10.1186/s13690-024-01424-z. Arch Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39497184 Free PMC article.
-
Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Regenerative Medicine Treatment for Chronic Pain: A Consensus Report from a Multispecialty Working Group.J Pain Res. 2024 Sep 11;17:2951-3001. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S480559. eCollection 2024. J Pain Res. 2024. PMID: 39282657 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Designing Rigorous and Efficient Clinical Utility Studies for Early Detection Biomarkers.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2024 Sep 3;33(9):1150-1157. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-23-1594. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2024. PMID: 39223980
-
U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2024.MMWR Recomm Rep. 2024 Aug 8;73(3):1-77. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7303a1. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2024. PMID: 39106301 Free PMC article.
-
A systematic review of LGBTQ+ identities and topics in sport leadership.Front Sports Act Living. 2024 Jul 1;6:1414404. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1414404. eCollection 2024. Front Sports Act Living. 2024. PMID: 39015729 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
