Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Speech and language delays and disorders can pose significant problems for children and their families. Evidence suggests that school-aged children with speech or language delays may be at increased risk of learning and literacy disabilities, including difficulties with reading and writing. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children 5 years or younger. Population: Asymptomatic children 5 years or younger whose parents or clinicians do not have specific concerns about their speech, language, hearing, or development. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children who do not present with signs or symptoms or parent/caregiver concerns. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children 5 years or younger without signs or symptoms. (I statement).

Screening and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Children and Adolescents Aged 5 to 17 Years: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Oral health is fundamental to health and well-being across the lifespan. Oral health conditions affect the daily lives of school-age children and adolescents, leading to loss of more than 51 million school hours every year. Untreated oral health conditions in children can lead to serious infections and affect growth, development, and quality of life. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate screening and preventive interventions for oral health conditions in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. Population: Asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for oral health conditions (eg, dental caries) performed by primary care clinicians in asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of preventive interventions for oral health conditions (eg, dental caries) performed by primary care clinicians in asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. Recommendations: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening performed by primary care clinicians for oral health conditions, including dental caries, in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of preventive interventions performed by primary care clinicians for oral health conditions, including dental caries, in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. (I statement).

Screening and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Oral health is fundamental to health and well-being across the life span. Dental caries (cavities) and periodontal disease (gum disease) are common and often untreated oral health conditions that affect eating, speaking, learning, smiling, and employment potential. Untreated oral health conditions can lead to tooth loss, irreversible tooth damage, and other serious adverse health outcomes. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate screening and preventive interventions for oral health conditions in adults. Population: Asymptomatic adults 18 years or older. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for oral health conditions (eg, dental caries or periodontal disease) performed by primary care clinicians in asymptomatic adults. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of preventive interventions for oral health conditions (eg, dental caries or periodontal disease) performed by primary care clinicians in asymptomatic adults. Recommendations: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening performed by primary care clinicians for oral health conditions, including dental caries or periodontal-related disease, in adults. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of preventive interventions performed by primary care clinicians for oral health conditions, including dental caries or periodontal-related disease, in adults. (I statement).

Would You Screen This Patient for Cognitive Impairment? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Dementia, according to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, is defined by a significant decline in 1 or more cognitive domains that interferes with a person's independence in daily activities. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) differs from dementia in that the impairment is not sufficient to interfere with independence. For the purposes of this discussion, cognitive impairment (CI) includes both dementia and MCI. Various screening tests are available for CI. These tests ask patients to perform a series of tasks that assess 1 or more domains of cognitive function or ask a caregiver to report on the patient's abilities. A positive result on a screening test does not equate to a diagnosis of CI; rather, it should lead to additional testing to confirm the diagnosis. On review of the evidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded in 2020 that the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for CI in older adults ("I statement"). The USPSTF did clarify that although there is insufficient evidence, there may be important reasons to identify CI. In this article, 2 experts review the available evidence to answer the following questions: What screening tools are available, and how effective are they in identifying patients with CI? What interventions are available for patients found to have CI, to what extent do they improve patient outcomes, and what, if any, negative effects occur? And, would they recommend screening for CI, and why or why not?

Screening for Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: US Preventive Services Task Force Final Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are among the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in the US. The rate of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy has been increasing from approximately 500 cases per 10 000 deliveries in 1993 to 1021 cases per 10 000 deliveries in 2016 to 2017. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Population: Pregnant persons without a known diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy or chronic hypertension. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy with blood pressure measurements has substantial net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnant persons with blood pressure measurements throughout pregnancy. (B recommendation).

Folic Acid Supplementation to Prevent Neural Tube Defects: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Neural tube defects are among the most common congenital malformations in the US, with an estimated 3000 pregnancies affected each year. Many of these neural tube defects are caused by low folate levels in the body. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence update on the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation. Population: Persons who are planning to or could become pregnant. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that, for persons who are planning to or could become pregnant, there is high certainty that folic acid supplementation has a substantial net benefit to prevent neural tube defects in their offspring. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that all persons planning to or who could become pregnant take a daily supplement containing 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400 to 800 µg) of folic acid. (A recommendation).

Screening for Lipid Disorders in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia are 2 conditions that cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, which can lead to premature cardiovascular events (eg, myocardial infarction and stroke) and death in adulthood. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for lipid disorders in asymptomatic children and adolescents. Population: Asymptomatic children and adolescents 20 years or younger without a known diagnosis of a lipid disorder. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient and the balance of benefits and harms for screening for lipid disorders in asymptomatic children and adolescents 20 years or younger cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for lipid disorders in children and adolescents 20 years or younger. (I statement).

Shared Decision Making for Elective Surgical Procedures in Older Adults with and without Cognitive Insufficiencies.

PURPOSE: Older adults are prone to cognitive impairment, which may affect their ability to engage in aspects of shared decision making (SDM) and their ability to complete surveys about the SDM process. This study examined the surgical decision-making processes of older adults with and without cognitive insufficiencies and evaluated the psychometric properties of the SDM Process scale. METHODS: Eligible patients were 65 y or older and scheduled for a preoperative appointment before elective surgery (e.g., arthroplasty). One week before the visit, staff contacted patients via phone to administer the baseline survey, including the SDM Process scale (range 0-4), SURE scale (top scored), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test version 8.1 BLIND English (MoCA-blind; score range 0-22; scores < 19 indicate cognitive insufficiency). Patients completed a follow-up survey 3 mo after their visit to assess decision regret (top scored) and retest reliability for the SDM Process scale. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent (127/488) of eligible patients completed the survey; 121 were included in the analytic data set, and 85 provided sufficient follow-up data. Forty percent of patients (n = 49/121) had MoCA-blind scores indicating cognitive insufficiencies. Overall SDM Process scores did not differ by cognitive status (intact cognition x¯ = 2.5, s = 1.0 v. cognitive insufficiencies x¯ = 2.5, s = 1.0; P = 0.80). SURE top scores were similar across groups (83% intact cognition v. 90% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.43). While patients with intact cognition had less regret, the difference was not statistically significant (92% intact cognition v. 79% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.10). SDM Process scores had low missing data and good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Reported SDM, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. The SDM Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of SDM in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. HIGHLIGHTS: Forty percent of patients 65 y or older who were scheduled for elective surgery had scores indicative of cognitive insufficiencies.Patient-reported shared decision making, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies.The Shared Decision Making Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of shared decision making in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies.

Screening for Anxiety Disorders in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Anxiety disorders are commonly occurring mental health conditions. They are often unrecognized in primary care settings and substantial delays in treatment initiation occur. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for anxiety disorders in asymptomatic adults. Population: Asymptomatic adults 19 years or older, including pregnant and postpartum persons. Older adults are defined as those 65 years or older. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for anxiety disorders in adults, including pregnant and postpartum persons, has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on screening for anxiety disorders in older adults. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for anxiety disorders in adults, including pregnant and postpartum persons. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety disorders in older adults. (I statement).

Screening for Depression and Suicide Risk in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Major depressive disorder (MDD), a common mental disorder in the US, may have substantial impact on the lives of affected individuals. If left untreated, MDD can interfere with daily functioning and can also be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, exacerbation of comorbid conditions, or increased mortality. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate benefits and harms of screening, accuracy of screening, and benefits and harms of treatment of MDD and suicide risk in asymptomatic adults that would be applicable to primary care settings. Population: Asymptomatic adults 19 years or older, including pregnant and postpartum persons. Older adults are defined as those 65 years or older. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for MDD in adults, including pregnant and postpartum persons and older adults, has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on the benefit and harms of screening for suicide risk in adults, including pregnant and postpartum persons and older adults. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the adult population, including pregnant and postpartum persons and older adults. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for suicide risk in the adult population, including pregnant and postpartum persons and older adults. (I statement).

Screening for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: In the US, tuberculosis remains an important preventable disease, including active tuberculosis, which may be infectious, and latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), which is asymptomatic and not infectious but can later progress to active disease. The precise prevalence rate of LTBI in the US is difficult to determine; however, estimated prevalence is about 5.0%, or up to 13 million persons. Incidence of tuberculosis varies by geography and living accommodations, suggesting an association with social determinants of health. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on LTBI screening and treatment in asymptomatic adults seen in primary care, as well as the accuracy of LTBI screening tests. Population: Asymptomatic adults 18 years or older at increased risk for tuberculosis. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit in preventing active tuberculosis disease by screening for LTBI in persons at increased risk for tuberculosis infection. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for LTBI in populations at increased risk. (B recommendation).

Additive effects of microplastics on accumulation and toxicity of cadmium in male zebrafish.

Microplastics (MPs) have emerged as contaminants of concern because of their ubiquitous presence in almost all aquatic environments. The ecological effects of MPs are complex and depend on multiple factors including their age, size and the ecological matrix. There is an urgent need for multifactorial studies to elucidate their impacts. We measured the effects of virgin and naturally aged MPs, alone, pretreated with cadmium (Cd), or in combination with ionic Cd, on the bioaccumulation of Cd, metallothionein expression, behavior, and histopathology of adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). Zebrafish were exposed to virgin or aged polyethylene MPs (0.1% MPs enriched diets, w/w) or waterborne Cd (50 µg/L) or a combination of the two for 21 days. There was an additive interaction between water-borne Cd and MPs on bioaccumulation in males but not in females. Cd accumulation increased by twofold when water-borne Cd and MPs were combined. Water-borne Cd induced significantly higher levels of metallothionein compared to MPs pre-exposed to Cd. However, Cd-treated MPs caused greater damage to the intestine and liver compared to untreated MPs suggesting that bound Cd could be released or modulate MPs toxicity. We also showed that co-exposure to water-borne Cd and MPs increased anxiety in the zebrafish, compared with water-borne Cd alone, suggesting using microplastics as a vector may increase toxicity. This study demonstrates that MPs can enhance the toxicity of Cd, but further study is needed to elucidate the mechanism.

Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the US. There are different types of skin cancer varying in disease incidence and severity. Basal and squamous cell carcinomas are the most common types of skin cancer but infrequently lead to death or substantial morbidity. Melanomas represent about 1% of skin cancer and cause the most skin cancer deaths. Melanoma is about 30 times more common in White persons than in Black persons. However, persons with darker skin color are often diagnosed at later stages, when skin cancer is more difficult to treat. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Population: Asymptomatic adolescents and adults who do not have a history of premalignant or malignant skin lesions. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of visual skin examination by a clinician to screen for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of visual skin examination by a clinician to screen for skin cancer in adolescents and adults. (I statement).

Serologic Screening for Genital Herpes Infection: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Genital herpes is a common sexually transmitted infection caused by 2 related viruses, herpes simplex type 1 (HSV-1) and herpes simplex type 2 (HSV-2). Infection is lifelong; currently, there is no cure for HSV infection. Antiviral medications may provide clinical benefits to symptomatic persons. Transmission of HSV from a pregnant person to their infant can occur, most commonly during delivery; when genital lesions or prodromal symptoms are present, cesarean delivery can reduce the risk of transmission. Neonatal herpes infection is uncommon yet can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Objective: To reaffirm its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence update on targeted key questions to systematically evaluate the evidence on accuracy, benefits, and harms of routine serologic screening for HSV-2 infection in asymptomatic adolescents, adults, and pregnant persons. Population: Adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons, without known history, signs, or symptoms of genital HSV infection. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms outweigh the benefits for population-based screening for genital HSV infection in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against routine serologic screening for genital HSV infection in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons. (D recommendation).

Evaluation of the shared decision-making process scale in cancer screening and medication decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Examine reliability and validity of the Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale for cancer screening and medication decisions. METHODS: Secondary data analysis from 6174 participants who made decisions about cancer screening (breast, colon or prostate) or medication (menopause, depression, hypertension or high cholesterol). Key measures included the SDM Process scale, decisional conflict, decision regret, and decision quality. Construct validity was examined by testing whether higher SDM Process scores were associated with lower regret, lower decisional conflict and higher decision quality. Meta-analyses summarized data across studies. Some studies assessed the scale's reliability. RESULTS: Average SDM Process scores ranged from 1.2 to 2.5. There was a moderate-to-large, positive association between scores and lack of decisional conflict (cancer screening: d=0.61, CI(0.38, 0.84), p < .001; medications: d=0.36, CI(0.29, 0.44), p < .001). High scores were associated with lower decision regret (cancer screening: d=-0.24, CI(-0.37, -0.11), p < .001; medications: d=-0.30, CI(-0.40,-0.20), p < .001). There was no relationship with decision quality. Retest reliability was acceptable (ICC>0.7) for seven of eight clinical samples. CONCLUSIONS: The SDM Process scale demonstrated construct validity and retest reliability in cancer screening and medication decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The validated SDM Process scale is a short, patient reported metric to evaluate the current state of SDM.

Hormone Therapy for the Primary Prevention of Chronic Conditions in Postmenopausal Persons: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Menopause is defined as the cessation of a person's menstrual cycle. It is defined retrospectively, 12 months after the final menstrual period. Perimenopause, or the menopausal transition, is the few-year time period preceding a person's final menstrual period and is characterized by increasing menstrual cycle length variability and periods of amenorrhea, and often symptoms such as vasomotor dysfunction. The prevalence and incidence of most chronic diseases (eg, cardiovascular disease, cancer, osteoporosis, and fracture) increase with age, and US persons who reach menopause are expected on average to live more than another 30 years. Objective: To update its 2017 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic (ie, oral or transdermal) hormone therapy for the prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons and whether outcomes vary by age or by timing of intervention after menopause. Population: Asymptomatic postmenopausal persons who are considering hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic medical conditions. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons with an intact uterus has no net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy has no net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy. (D recommendation).

Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Current prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in the US is not well established; however, based on cohort and survey data, in 2007-2010 the estimated prevalence of at least mild OSA (defined as an apnea-hypoxia index [AHI] ≥5) plus symptoms of daytime sleepiness among adults aged 30 to 70 years was 14% for men and 5% for women, and the estimated prevalence of moderate to severe OSA (defined as AHI ≥15) was 13% for men and 6% for women. Severe OSA is associated with increased all-cause mortality. Other adverse health outcomes associated with untreated OSA include cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular events, type 2 diabetes, cognitive impairment, decreased quality of life, and motor vehicle crashes. Objective: To update its 2017 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for OSA in adults. Population: Asymptomatic adults (18 years or older) and adults with unrecognized symptoms of OSA. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA in the general adult population. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA in the general adult population. (I statement).

Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Anxiety disorder, a common mental health condition in the US, comprises a group of related conditions characterized by excessive fear or worry that present as emotional and physical symptoms. The 2018-2019 National Survey of Children's Health found that 7.8% of children and adolescents aged 3 to 17 years had a current anxiety disorder. Anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence are associated with an increased likelihood of a future anxiety disorder or depression. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. This is a new recommendation. Population: Children and adolescents 18 years or younger who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder or are not showing recognized signs or symptoms of anxiety. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for anxiety in children and adolescents aged 8 to 18 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on screening for anxiety in children 7 years or younger. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for anxiety in children and adolescents aged 8 to 18 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children 7 years or younger. (I statement).