Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children 5 Years or Younger: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Children with speech and language difficulties are at risk for learning and behavioral problems. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for speech and language delay or disorders in children 5 years or younger to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, ERIC, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts (ProQuest), and trial registries through January 17, 2023; surveillance through November 24, 2023. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening test accuracy, trials or cohort studies comparing screening vs no screening; randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of interventions. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and data extraction; results were narratively summarized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening test accuracy, speech and language outcomes, school performance, function, quality of life, and harms. Results: Thirty-eight studies in 41 articles were included (N = 9006). No study evaluated the direct benefits of screening vs no screening. Twenty-one studies (n = 7489) assessed the accuracy of 23 different screening tools that varied with regard to whether they were designed to be completed by parents vs trained examiners, and to screen for global (any) language problems vs specific skills (eg, expressive language). Three studies assessing parent-reported tools for expressive language skills found consistently high sensitivity (range, 88%-93%) and specificity (range, 88%-85%). The accuracy of other screening tools varied widely. Seventeen RCTs (n = 1517) evaluated interventions for speech and language delay or disorders, although none enrolled children identified by routine screening in primary care. Two RCTs evaluating relatively intensive parental group training interventions (11 sessions) found benefit for different measures of expressive language skills, and 1 evaluating a less intensive intervention (6 sessions) found no difference between groups for any outcome. Two RCTs (n = 76) evaluating the Lidcombe Program of Early Stuttering Intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists featuring parent training found a 2.3% to 3.0% lower proportion of syllables stuttered at 9 months compared with the control group when delivered in clinic and via telehealth, respectively. Evidence on other interventions was limited. No RCTs reported on the harms of interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: No studies directly assessed the benefits and harms of screening. Some parent-reported screening tools for expressive language skills had reasonable accuracy for detecting expressive language delay. Group parent training programs for speech delay that provided at least 11 parental training sessions improved expressive language skills, and a stuttering intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists reduced stuttering frequency.

Folic Acid Supplementation to Prevent Neural Tube Defects: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Neural tube defects are among the most common birth defects in the US. Objective: To review new evidence on the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation for the prevention of neural tube defects to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Review: Sources included PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and trial registries from July 1, 2015, through July 2, 2021; references; and experts, with surveillance through February 10, 2023. Two investigators independently reviewed English-language randomized studies and nonrandomized cohort studies in very highly developed countries that focused on the use of folic acid supplementation for the prevention of neural tube defect-affected pregnancies; methodological quality was dually and independently assessed. Findings: Twelve observational studies (reported in 13 publications) were eligible for this limited update (N = 1 244 072). Of these, 3 studies (n = 990 372) reported on the effect of folic acid supplementation on neural tube defects. For harms, 9 studies were eligible: 1 randomized clinical trial (n = 431) reported on variations in twin delivery, 7 observational studies (n = 761 125) reported on the incidence of autism spectrum disorder, and 1 observational study (n = 429 004) reported on maternal cancer. Two cohort studies and 1 case-control study newly identified in this update reported on the association between folic acid supplementation and neural tube defects (n = 990 372). One cohort study reported a statistically significant reduced risk of neural tube defects associated with folic acid supplementation taken before pregnancy (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31-0.91]), during pregnancy (aRR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.39-0.97]), and before and during pregnancy (aRR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.29-0.83]), but this association occurred for only the later of 2 periods studied (2006-2013 and not 1999-2005). No other statistically significant benefits were reported overall. No study reported statistically significant harms (multiple gestation, autism, and maternal cancer) associated with pregnancy-related folic acid exposure. Conclusions and Relevance: New evidence from observational studies provided additional evidence of the benefit of folic acid supplementation for preventing neural tube defects and no evidence of harms related to multiple gestation, autism, or maternal cancer. The new evidence was consistent with previously reviewed evidence on benefits and harms.

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Of youths diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, many develop microvascular complications by young adulthood. Objective: To review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 3, 2021; references; experts; literature surveillance through July 22, 2022. Study Selection: English-language controlled studies evaluating screening or interventions for prediabetes or type 2 diabetes that was screen detected or recently diagnosed. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, diabetes-related morbidity, development of diabetes, quality of life, and harms. Results: This review included 8 publications (856 participants; mean age, 14 years [range, 10-17 years]). Of those, 6 were from the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study. No eligible studies directly evaluated the benefits or harms of screening. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (TODAY; n = 699 adolescents with obesity; mean age, 14 years) comparing metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, and metformin plus lifestyle intervention reported that 2 youths with recently diagnosed diabetes developed kidney impairment (0 vs 1 vs 1, respectively; P > .99) and 11 developed diabetic ketoacidosis (5 vs 3 vs 3, respectively; P = .70). One RCT of 75 adolescents (mean age, 13 years) with obesity with prediabetes compared an intensive lifestyle intervention with standard care and reported that no participants in either group developed diabetes, although follow-up was only 6 months. Regarding harms of interventions, 2 RCTs assessing different comparisons enrolled youths with recently diagnosed diabetes. Major hypoglycemic events were reported by less than 1% of participants. Minor hypoglycemic events were more common among youths treated with metformin plus rosiglitazone than among those treated with metformin or metformin plus lifestyle intervention in TODAY (8.2% vs 4.3% vs 3.4%, P = .05). In 1 study, gastrointestinal adverse events were more commonly reported by those taking metformin than by those taking placebo (abdominal pain: 25% vs 12%; nausea/vomiting: 17% vs 10%; P not reported). Conclusions and Relevance: No eligible studies directly evaluated the benefits or harms of screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. For youths with prediabetes or recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, the only eligible trials reported few health outcomes and found no difference between groups, although evidence was limited by substantial imprecision and a duration of follow-up likely insufficient to assess health outcomes.

Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Eating disorders are associated with adverse health and social outcomes. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and trial registries through December 19, 2020; surveillance through January 1, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening test accuracy, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening or interventions for eating disorders in populations with screen-detected or previously untreated eating disorders (trials limited to populations who are underweight were ineligible). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies and intervention trials. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test accuracy, eating disorder symptom severity, quality of life, depression, and harms. Results: Fifty-seven studies were included (N = 10 773); 3 (n = 1073) limited to adolescents (mean or median age, 14-15 years). No study directly evaluated the benefits and harms of screening. Seventeen studies (n = 6804) evaluated screening test accuracy. The SCOFF questionnaire (cut point ≥2) had a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 74% to 90%) and pooled specificity of 80% (95% CI, 65% to 89%) in adults (10 studies, n = 3684). Forty RCTs (n = 3969) evaluated interventions for eating disorders; none enrolled a screen-detected population. Lisdexamfetamine for binge eating disorder (4 RCTs; n = 900) was associated with larger reductions in eating disorder symptom severity on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale modified for binge eating (YBOCS-BE) than placebo (pooled mean difference, -5.75 [95% CI, -8.32 to -3.17]). Two RCTs (n = 465) of topiramate for binge eating disorder found larger reductions in YBOCS-BE scores associated with topiramate than placebo, from -6.40 (95% CI, -8.16 to -4.64) to -2.55 (95% CI, -4.22 to -0.88). Nine pharmacotherapy trials (n = 2006) reported on harms. Compared with placebo, lisdexamfetamine was associated with higher rates of dry mouth, headache, and insomnia, and topiramate was associated with higher rates of paresthesia, taste perversion, confusion, and concentration difficulty. Twenty-four trials (n = 1644) assessed psychological interventions. Guided self-help for binge eating disorder improved eating disorder symptom severity more than control (pooled standardized mean difference, -0.96 [95% CI, -1.26 to -0.67]) (5 studies, n = 391). Evidence on other interventions was limited. Conclusions and Relevance: No studies directly assessed the benefits and harms of screening. The SCOFF questionnaire had adequate accuracy for detecting eating disorders among adults. No treatment trials enrolled screen-detected populations; guided self-help, lisdexamfetamine, and topiramate were effective for reducing eating disorder symptom severity among referred populations with binge eating disorder, but pharmacotherapies were also associated with harms.

Pharmacologic Treatment for Perinatal Mental Health Disorders.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019124057.

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Type 2 diabetes is common and is a leading cause of morbidity and disability. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for prediabetes and diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through September 2019; references; and experts; literature surveillance through May 21, 2021. Study Selection: English-language controlled studies evaluating screening or interventions for prediabetes or diabetes that was screen detected or recently diagnosed. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings; meta-analyses conducted when at least 3 similar studies were available. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, diabetes-related morbidity, development of diabetes, quality of life, and harms. Results: The review included 89 publications (N = 68 882). Two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (25 120 participants) found no significant difference between screening and control groups for all-cause or cause-specific mortality at 10 years. For harms (eg, anxiety or worry), the trials reported no significant differences between screening and control groups. For recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, 5 RCTs (5138 participants) were included. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study, health outcomes were improved with intensive glucose control with sulfonylureas or insulin. For example, for all-cause mortality the relative risk (RR) was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.96) over 20 years (10-year posttrial assessment). For overweight persons, intensive glucose control with metformin improved health outcomes at the 10-year follow-up (eg, all-cause mortality: RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.91]), and benefits were maintained longer term. Lifestyle interventions (most involving >360 minutes) for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes were associated with reductions in the incidence of diabetes (23 RCTs; pooled RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.88]). Lifestyle interventions were also associated with improved intermediate outcomes, such as reduced weight, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure (pooled weighted mean difference, -1.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.8] and -1.2 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4], respectively). Metformin was associated with a significant reduction in diabetes incidence (pooled RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.83]) and reduction in weight and body mass index. Conclusions and Relevance: Trials of screening for diabetes found no significant mortality benefit but had insufficient data to assess other health outcomes; evidence on harms of screening was limited. For persons with recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, interventions improved health outcomes; for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes, interventions were associated with reduced incidence of diabetes and improvement in other intermediate outcomes.

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms. Results: This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened). Conclusions and Relevance: Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Maternal, Fetal, and Child Outcomes of Mental Health Treatments in Women: A Meta-Analysis of Pharmacotherapy.

Objective: The authors systematically reviewed evidence on pharmacotherapy for perinatal mental health disorders. Methods: The authors searched for studies of pregnant, postpartum, or reproductive-age women with mental health disorders treated with pharmacotherapy in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and trial registries from database inception through June 5, 2020 and surveilled literature through March 2, 2021. Outcomes included symptoms; functional capacity; quality of life; suicidal events; death; and maternal, fetal, infant, or child adverse events. Results: 164 studies were included. Regarding benefits, brexanolone for third-trimester or postpartum depression onset may be associated with improved depressive symptoms at 30 days when compared with placebo. Sertraline for postpartum depression may be associated with improved response, remission, and depressive symptoms when compared with placebo. Discontinuing mood stabilizers during pregnancy may be associated with increased recurrence of mood episodes for bipolar disorder. Regarding adverse events, most studies were observational and unable to fully account for confounding. Evidence on congenital and cardiac anomalies for treatment compared with no treatment was inconclusive. Brexanolone for depression onset in the third trimester or the postpartum period may be associated with risk of sedation or somnolence, leading to dose interruption or reduction when compared with placebo. Conclusions: Evidence from few studies supports the use of pharmacotherapy for perinatal mental health disorders. Although many studies report on adverse events, they could not rule out underlying disease severity as the cause of the association between exposures and adverse events. Patients and clinicians need to make informed, collaborative decisions on treatment choices.

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence, Elder Abuse, and Abuse of Vulnerable Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Intimate partner violence (IPV), elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults are common and result in adverse health outcomes. Objective: To review the evidence on screening and interventions for IPV, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through October 4, 2017; references; experts; literature surveillance through August 1, 2018. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs), studies evaluating test accuracy, and cohort studies with a concurrent control group assessing harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled, primarily because of heterogeneity of populations, interventions, and outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Abuse or neglect, morbidity caused by abuse, test accuracy, and harms. Results: Thirty studies were included (N = 14 959). Three RCTs (n = 3759) compared IPV screening with no screening; none found significant improvements in outcomes (eg, IPV or quality of life) over 3 to 18 months and 2 (n = 935) reported no harms of screening. Nine studies assessed tools to detect any past-year or current IPV in women; for past-year IPV (5 studies [n = 6331]), sensitivity of 5 tools ranged from 65% to 87% and specificity ranged from 80% to 95%. The accuracy of 5 tools (4 studies [n = 1795]) for detecting current abuse varied widely; sensitivity ranged from 46% to 94% and specificity ranged from 38% to 95%. Eleven RCTs (n = 6740) evaluated interventions for women with screen-detected IPV. Two enrolling pregnant women (n = 575) found significantly less IPV among women in the intervention group: 1 home visiting intervention (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.34 [95% CI, -0.59 to -0.08]) and 1 behavioral counseling intervention for multiple risks (IPV, smoking, depression, tobacco exposure) (SMD, -0.40 [95% CI, -0.68 to -0.12]). No studies evaluated screening or interventions for elder abuse or abuse of vulnerable adults. One study assessing a screening tool for elder abuse had poor accuracy (sensitivity, 46% and specificity, 73% for detecting physical or verbal abuse). Conclusions and Relevance: Although available screening tools may reasonably identify women experiencing IPV, trials of IPV screening in adult women did not show a reduction in IPV or improvement in quality of life over 3 to 18 months. Limited evidence suggested that home visiting and behavioral counseling interventions that address multiple risk factors may lead to reduced IPV among pregnant or postpartum women. No studies assessed screening or treatment for elder abuse and abuse of vulnerable adults.

Screening for Atrial Fibrillation With Electrocardiography: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia and increases the risk of stroke. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with electrocardiography (ECG) and stroke prevention treatment in asymptomatic adults 65 years or older to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2017; references; experts; literature surveillance through June 6, 2018. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies evaluating detection rates of atrial fibrillation or harms of screening, and systematic reviews evaluating stroke prevention treatment. Eligible treatment studies compared warfarin, aspirin, or novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with placebo or no treatment. Studies were excluded that focused on persons with a history of cardiovascular disease. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. When at least 3 similar studies were available, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Detection of previously undiagnosed atrial fibrillation, mortality, stroke, stroke-related morbidity, and harms. Results: Seventeen studies were included (n = 135 300). No studies evaluated screening compared with no screening and focused on health outcomes. Systematic screening with ECG identified more new cases of atrial fibrillation than no screening (absolute increase, from 0.6% [95% CI, 0.1%-0.9%] to 2.8% [95% CI, 0.9%-4.7%] over 12 months; 2 RCTs, n = 15 803), but a systematic approach using ECG did not detect more cases than an approach using pulse palpation (2 RCTs, n = 17 803). For potential harms, no eligible studies compared screening with no screening. Warfarin (mean, 1.5 years) was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic stroke (relative risk [RR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.20-0.51]) and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.50-0.93]) and with increased risk of bleeding (5 trials, n = 2415). Participants in treatment trials were not screen detected, and most had long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. A network meta-analysis reported that NOACs were associated with a significantly lower risk of a composite outcome of stroke and systemic embolism (adjusted odds ratios compared with placebo or control ranged from 0.32-0.44); the risk of bleeding was increased (adjusted odds ratios, 1.4-2.2), but confidence intervals were wide and differences between groups were not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: Although screening with ECG can detect previously unknown cases of atrial fibrillation, it has not been shown to detect more cases than screening focused on pulse palpation. Treatments for atrial fibrillation reduce the risk of stroke and all-cause mortality and increase the risk of bleeding, but trials have not assessed whether treatment of screen-detected asymptomatic older adults results in better health outcomes than treatment after detection by usual care or after symptoms develop.

Screening for Cardiovascular Disease Risk With Resting or Exercise Electrocardiography: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Objective: To review the evidence on screening asymptomatic adults for CVD risk using electrocardiography (ECG) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2017; references; experts; literature surveillance through April 4, 2018. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs); prospective cohort studies reporting reclassification, calibration, or discrimination that compared risk assessment using ECG plus traditional risk factors vs traditional risk factors alone. For harms, additional study designs were eligible. Studies of persons with symptoms or a CVD diagnosis were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, cardiovascular events, reclassification, calibration, discrimination, and harms. Results: Sixteen studies were included (N = 77 140). Two RCTs (n = 1151) found no significant improvement for screening with exercise ECG (vs no screening) in adults aged 50 to 75 years with diabetes for the primary cardiovascular composite outcomes (hazard ratios, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.59-1.71] and 0.85 [95% CI, 0.39-1.84] for each study). No RCTs evaluated screening with resting ECG. Evidence from 5 cohort studies (n = 9582) showed that adding exercise ECG to traditional risk factors such as age, sex, current smoking, diabetes, total cholesterol level, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level produced small improvements in discrimination (absolute improvements in area under the curve [AUC] or C statistics, 0.02-0.03, reported by 3 studies); whether calibration or appropriate risk classification improves is uncertain. Evidence from 9 cohort studies (n = 66 407) showed that adding resting ECG to traditional risk factors produced small improvements in discrimination (absolute improvement in AUC or C statistics, 0.001-0.05) and appropriate risk classification for prediction of multiple cardiovascular outcomes, although evidence was limited by imprecision, quality, considerable heterogeneity, and inconsistent use of risk thresholds used for clinical decision making. Total net reclassification improvements ranged from 3.6% (2.7% event; 0.6% nonevent) to 30% (17% event; 19% nonevent) for studies using the Framingham Risk Score or Pooled Cohort Equations base models. Evidence on potential harms (eg, from subsequent angiography or revascularization) in asymptomatic persons was limited. Conclusions and Relevance: RCTs of screening with exercise ECG found no improvement in health outcomes, despite focusing on higher-risk populations with diabetes. The addition of resting ECG to traditional risk factors accurately reclassified persons, but evidence for this finding had many limitations. The frequency of harms from screening is uncertain.

Screening to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Osteoporotic fractures cause significant morbidity and mortality. Objective: To update the evidence on screening and treatment to prevent osteoporotic fractures for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries (November 1, 2009, through October 1, 2016) and surveillance of the literature (through March 23, 2018); bibliographies from articles. Study Selection: Adults 40 years and older; screening cohorts without prevalent low-trauma fractures or treatment cohorts with increased fracture risk; studies assessing screening, bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments, pharmacologic treatment. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual, independent review of titles/abstracts and full-text articles; study quality rating; random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident fractures and related morbidity and mortality, diagnostic and predictive accuracy, harms of screening or treatment. Results: One hundred sixty-eight fair- or good-quality articles were included. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 12 483) comparing screening with no screening reported fewer hip fractures (2.6% vs 3.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.89]) but no other statistically significant benefits or harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests to identify osteoporosis varied (area under the curve [AUC], 0.32-0.89). The pooled accuracy of clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis ranged from AUC of 0.65 to 0.76 in women and from 0.76 to 0.80 in men; the accuracy for predicting fractures was similar. For women, bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone, raloxifene, and denosumab were associated with a lower risk of vertebral fractures (9 trials [n = 23 690]; relative risks [RRs] from 0.32-0.64). Bisphosphonates (8 RCTs [n = 16 438]; pooled RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.92]) and denosumab (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) were associated with a lower risk of nonvertebral fractures. Denosumab reduced the risk of hip fracture (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97]), but bisphosphonates did not have a statistically significant association (3 RCTs [n = 8988]; pooled RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.44-1.11]). Evidence was limited for men: zoledronic acid reduced the risk of radiographic vertebral fractures (1 RCT [n = 1199]; RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16-0.70]); no studies demonstrated reductions in clinical or hip fractures. Bisphosphonates were not consistently associated with reported harms other than deep vein thrombosis (raloxifene vs placebo; 3 RCTs [n = 5839]; RR, 2.14 [95% CI, 0.99-4.66]). Conclusions and Relevance: In women, screening to prevent osteoporotic fractures may reduce hip fractures, and treatment reduced the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures; there was not consistent evidence of treatment harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis or predicting fractures varied from very poor to good.

Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether information in ClinicalTrials.gov would impact the conclusions of five ongoing systematic reviews. METHOD: We considered five reviews that included 495 studies total. Each review team conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov up to the date of the review's last literature search, screened the records using the review's eligibility criteria, extracted information, and assessed risk of bias and applicability. Each team then evaluated the impact of the evidence found in ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions in the review. RESULTS: Across the five reviews, the number of studies that had both a registry record and a publication varied widely, from none in one review to 43% of all studies identified in another. Among the studies with both a record and publication, there was also wide variability in the match between published outcomes and those listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 173 total ClinicalTrials.gov records identified across the five projects, between 11 and 43% did not have an associated publication. In the 14% of records that contained results, the new data provided in the ClinicalTrials.gov records did not change the results or conclusions of the reviews. Finally, a large number of published studies were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, but many of these were published before ClinicalTrials.gov's inception date of 2000. CONCLUSION: Improved prospective registration of trials and consistent reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov would help make ClinicalTrials.gov records more useful in finding unpublished information and identifying potential biases. In addition, consistent indexing in databases, such as MEDLINE, would allow for better matching of records and publications, leading to increased utility of these searches for systematic review projects.

Quality improvement, implementation, and dissemination strategies to improve mental health care for children and adolescents: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Some outcomes for children with mental health problems remain suboptimal because of poor access to care and the failure of systems and providers to adopt established quality improvement strategies and interventions with proven effectiveness. This review had three goals: (1) assess the effectiveness of quality improvement, implementation, and dissemination strategies intended to improve the mental health care of children and adolescents; (2) examine harms associated with these strategies; and (3) determine whether effectiveness or harms differ for subgroups based on system, organizational, practitioner, or patient characteristics. METHODS: Sources included MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from database inception through February 17, 2017. Additional sources included gray literature, additional studies from reference lists, and technical experts. Two reviewers selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Dual analysis, synthesis, and grading of the strength of evidence for each outcome followed for studies meeting inclusion criteria. We also used qualitative comparative analysis to examine relationships between combinations of strategy components and improvements in outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 18 strategies described in 19 studies. Eleven strategies significantly improved at least one measure of intermediate outcomes, final health outcomes, or resource use. Moderate strength of evidence (from one RCT) supported using provider financial incentives such as pay for performance to improve the competence with which practitioners can implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). We found inconsistent evidence involving strategies with educational meetings, materials, and outreach; programs appeared to be successful in combination with reminders or providing practitioners with newly collected clinical information. We also found low strength of evidence for no benefit for initiatives that included only educational materials or meetings (or both), or only educational materials and outreach components. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on harms and moderators of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Several strategies can improve both intermediate and final health outcomes and resource use. This complex and heterogeneous body of evidence does not permit us to have a high degree of confidence about the efficacy of any one strategy because we generally found only a single study testing each strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42015024759 .

Screening for Major Depressive Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is common among children and adolescents and is associated with functional impairment and suicide. PURPOSE: To update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) systematic review on screening for and treatment of MDD in children and adolescents in primary care settings. DATA SOURCES: Several electronic searches (May 2007 to February 2015) and searches of reference lists of published literature. STUDY SELECTION: Trials and recent systematic reviews of treatment, test-retest studies of screening, and trials and large cohort studies for harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and checked by another; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Limited evidence from 5 studies showed that such tools as the Beck Depression Inventory and Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents had reasonable accuracy for identifying MDD among adolescents in primary care settings. Six trials evaluated treatment. Several individual fair- and good-quality studies of fluoxetine, combined fluoxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy, escitalopram, and collaborative care demonstrated benefits of treatment among adolescents, with no associated harms. LIMITATION: The review included only English-language studies, narrow inclusion criteria focused only on MDD, high thresholds for quality, potential publication bias, limited data on harms, and sparse evidence on long-term outcomes of screening and treatment among children younger than 12 years. CONCLUSION: No evidence was found of a direct link between screening children and adolescents for MDD in primary care or similar settings and depression or other health-related outcomes. Evidence showed that some screening tools are accurate and some treatments are beneficial among adolescents (but not younger children), with no evidence of associated harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Psychological treatments for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Numerous guidelines have been developed over the past decade regarding treatments for Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, given differences in guideline recommendations, some uncertainty exists regarding the selection of effective PTSD therapies. The current manuscript assessed the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and adverse effects of psychological treatments for adults with PTSD. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PILOTS, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science. Two reviewers independently selected trials. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and graded strength of evidence (SOE). We included 64 trials; patients generally had severe PTSD. Evidence supports efficacy of exposure therapy (high SOE) including the manualized version Prolonged Exposure (PE); cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive processing therapy (CPT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-mixed therapies (moderate SOE); eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) and narrative exposure therapy (low-moderate SOE). Effect sizes for reducing PTSD symptoms were large (e.g., Cohen's d ~-1.0 or more compared with controls). Numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were <4 to achieve loss of PTSD diagnosis for exposure therapy, CPT, CT, CBT-mixed, and EMDR. Several psychological treatments are effective for adults with PTSD. Head-to-head evidence was insufficient to determine these treatments' comparative effectiveness, and data regarding adverse events was absent from most studies.

Effects of alcohol retail privatization on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms: a community guide systematic review.

CONTEXT: Excessive alcohol consumption is the third-leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. This systematic review is one in a series exploring effectiveness of interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The focus of this review was on studies evaluating the effects of the privatization of alcohol retail sales on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. Using Community Guide methods for conducting systematic reviews, a systematic search was conducted in multiple databases up to December 2010. Reference lists of acquired articles and review papers were also scanned for additional studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 17 studies assessed the impact of privatizing retail alcohol sales on the per capita alcohol consumption, a well-established proxy for excessive alcohol consumption; 9 of these studies also examined the effects of privatization on the per capita consumption of alcoholic beverages that were not privatized. One cohort study in Finland assessed the impact of privatizing the sales of medium-strength beer (MSB) on self-reported alcohol consumption. One study in Sweden assessed the impact of re-monopolizing the sale of MSB on alcohol-related harms. Across the 17 studies, there was a 44.4% median increase in the per capita sales of privatized beverages in locations that privatized retail alcohol sales (interquartile interval: 4.5% to 122.5%). During the same time period, sales of nonprivatized alcoholic beverages decreased by a median of 2.2% (interquartile interval: -6.6% to -0.1%). Privatizing the sale of MSB in Finland was associated with a mean increase in alcohol consumption of 1.7 liters of pure alcohol per person per year. Re-monopolization of the sale of MSB in Sweden was associated with a general reduction in alcohol-related harms. CONCLUSIONS: According to Community Guide rules of evidence, there is strong evidence that privatization of retail alcohol sales leads to increases in excessive alcohol consumption.

Effectiveness of policies restricting hours of alcohol sales in preventing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms.

Local, state, and national policies that limit the hours that alcoholic beverages may be available for sale might be a means of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. The methods of the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used to synthesize scientific evidence on the effectiveness of such policies. All of the studies included in this review assessed the effects of increasing hours of sale in on-premises settings (in which alcoholic beverages are consumed where purchased) in high-income nations. None of the studies was conducted in the U.S. The review team's initial assessment of this evidence suggested that changes of less than 2 hours were unlikely to significantly affect excessive alcohol consumption and related harms; to explore this hypothesis, studies assessing the effects of changing hours of sale by less than 2 hours and by 2 or more hours were assessed separately. There was sufficient evidence in ten qualifying studies to conclude that increasing hours of sale by 2 or more hours increases alcohol-related harms. Thus, disallowing extensions of hours of alcohol sales by 2 or more should be expected to prevent alcohol-related harms, while policies decreasing hours of sale by 2 hours or more at on-premises alcohol outlets may be an effective strategy for preventing alcohol-related harms. The evidence from six qualifying studies was insufficient to determine whether increasing hours of sale by less than 2 hours increases excessive alcohol consumption and related harms.

Effectiveness of policies maintaining or restricting days of alcohol sales on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms.

Local, state, and national laws and policies that limit the days of the week on which alcoholic beverages may be sold may be a means of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. The methods of the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used to synthesize scientific evidence on the effectiveness for preventing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms of laws and policies maintaining or reducing the days when alcoholic beverages may be sold. Outcomes assessed in 14 studies that met qualifying criteria were excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms, including motor vehicle injuries and deaths, violence-related and other injuries, and health conditions. Qualifying studies assessed the effects of changes in days of sale in both on-premises settings (at which alcoholic beverages are consumed where purchased) and off-premises settings (at which alcoholic beverages may not be consumed where purchased). Eleven studies assessed the effects of adding days of sale, and three studies assessed the effects of imposing a ban on sales on a given weekend day. The evidence from these studies indicated that increasing days of sale leads to increases in excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms and that reducing the number of days that alcoholic beverages are sold generally decreases alcohol-related harms. Based on these findings, when the expansion of days of sale is being considered, laws and policies maintaining the number of days of the week that alcoholic beverages are sold at on- and off-premises outlets in local, state, and national jurisdictions are effective public health strategies for preventing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms.

The effectiveness of limiting alcohol outlet density as a means of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms.

The density of alcohol outlets in communities may be regulated to reduce excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. Studies directly assessing the control of outlet density as a means of controlling excessive alcohol consumption and related harms do not exist, but assessments of related phenomena are indicative. To assess the effects of outlet density on alcohol-related harms, primary evidence was used from interrupted time-series studies of outlet density; studies of the privatization of alcohol sales, alcohol bans, and changes in license arrangements-all of which affected outlet density. Most of the studies included in this review found that greater outlet density is associated with increased alcohol consumption and related harms, including medical harms, injury, crime, and violence. Primary evidence was supported by secondary evidence from correlational studies. The regulation of alcohol outlet density may be a useful public health tool for the reduction of excessive alcohol consumption and related harms.