Defining treatment-resistant depression.

BACKGROUND: Varying conceptualizations of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have made translating research findings or systematic reviews into clinical practice guidelines challenging and inconsistent. METHODS: We conducted a review for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to clarify how experts and investigators have defined TRD and to review systematically how well this definition comports with TRD definitions in clinical trials through July 5, 2019. RESULTS: We found that no consensus definition existed for TRD. The most common TRD definition for major depressive disorder required a minimum of two prior treatment failures and confirmation of prior adequate dose and duration. The most common TRD definition for bipolar disorder required one prior treatment failure. No clear consensus emerged on defining adequacy of either dose or duration. Our systematic review found that only 17% of intervention studies enrolled samples meeting the most frequently specified criteria for TRD. Depressive outcomes and clinical global impressions were commonly measured; functional impairment and quality-of-life tools were rarely used. CONCLUSIONS: Two key steps are critical to advancing TRD research: (a) Developing a consensus definition of TRD that addresses how best to specify the number of prior treatment failures and the adequacy of dose and duration; and (b) identifying a core package of outcome measures that can be applied in a standardized manner. Our recommendations about stronger approaches to designing and conducting TRD research will foster better evidence to translate into clearer guidelines for treating patients with this serious condition.

Primary Care Interventions to Prevent Child Maltreatment: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Child maltreatment, also referred to as child abuse and neglect, can result in lifelong negative consequences. Objective: To update the evidence on interventions provided in or referable from primary care to prevent child maltreatment for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through December 18, 2017; references; experts; literature surveillance through July 17, 2018. Study Selection: English-language fair- and good-quality randomized clinical trials that (1) included children with no known exposure to maltreatment and no signs or symptoms of current or past maltreatment, (2) evaluated interventions feasible in a primary care setting or that could result from a referral from primary care, and (3) reported abuse or neglect outcomes or proxies for abuse or neglect (eg, injury with a specificity for abuse, visits to the emergency department, hospitalization). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; a third resolved conflicts when needed. When at least 3 similar trials were available, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Direct measures (including reports to child protective services and removal of the child from the home) or proxy measures of abuse or neglect; behavioral, emotional, mental, or physical well-being; and harms. Results: Twenty-two trials (33 publications) were included (N = 11 132). No significant association was found between interventions and reports to child protective services within 1 year of intervention completion (10.6% vs 11.9%; pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.72-1.23]; 10 trials [n = 2444]) or removal of the child from the home within 1 to 3 years of follow-up (3.5% vs 3.7%; pooled OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.16-7.28]; 4 trials [n = 609]). No statistically significant associations were observed between interventions and outcomes for emergency department visits in the short term (<2 years), hospitalizations, child development, school performance, and prevention of death. Nonsignificant results from single trials led to a conclusion of insufficient evidence for injuries, failure to thrive, failure to immunize, school attendance, and other measures of abuse or neglect. Inconsistent results led to a conclusion of insufficient evidence for long-term (≥2 years) outcomes for reports to child protective services (ORs range from 0.48 to 1.13; 3 trials [n = 1690]), emergency department visits (1 of 2 trials reported significant differences) and internalizing and externalizing behavior symptoms (3 of 6 trials reported reductions in behavior difficulties). No eligible trials on harms of interventions were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Interventions provided in or referable from primary care did not consistently prevent child maltreatment. No evidence on harms is available.

The Effectiveness of Total Worker Health Interventions: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop.

BACKGROUND: The Total Worker Health (TWH) program of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health aims to advance worker well-being by integrating injury and illness prevention efforts with work-related safety and health hazard efforts. PURPOSE: To evaluate evidence on the benefits and harms of integrated TWH interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO (January 1990 through September 2015); clinical trial registries; and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies that enrolled employed adults and compared integrated interventions with usual work practice, no intervention, or another intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: Dual abstraction and risk-of-bias (ROB) assessment. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten of the 15 included studies had high ROB, primarily because of selection and attrition bias. Findings graded as having low strength of evidence (SOE) supported the effectiveness of TWH interventions for improving smoking cessation, as measured by self-reported 7-day abstinence over 22 to 26 weeks (2 randomized, controlled trials [RCTs]; n = 737), and increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables over 26 to 104 weeks (3 RCTs; n = 6056); results apply to populations of blue-collar manufacturing and construction workers. Findings graded as having low SOE supported the effectiveness of TWH interventions for reducing sedentary work behavior in office workers over 16 to 52 weeks (2 RCTs; n = 262). Evidence was insufficient or lacking for other outcomes of interest, such as rates of work injuries, quality of life, and harms. LIMITATION: Small, diverse body of evidence with many methodological limitations; possible publication bias. CONCLUSION: Integrated TWH interventions might improve health behaviors (for example, reduce tobacco use and sedentary behavior and improve diet) of workers, but effects of these interventions on injuries and overall quality of life are not known. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Binge-Eating Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The best treatment options for binge-eating disorder are unclear. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence about the benefits and harms of psychological and pharmacologic therapies for adults with binge-eating disorder. DATA SOURCES: English-language publications in EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Academic OneFile, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through 18 November 2015, and in MEDLINE through 12 May 2016. STUDY SELECTION: 9 waitlist-controlled psychological trials and 25 placebo-controlled trials that evaluated pharmacologic (n = 19) or combination (n = 6) treatment. All were randomized trials with low or medium risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers independently extracted trial data, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Therapist-led cognitive behavioral therapy, lisdexamfetamine, and second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) decreased binge-eating frequency and increased binge-eating abstinence (relative risk, 4.95 [95% CI, 3.06 to 8.00], 2.61 [CI, 2.04 to 3.33], and 1.67 [CI, 1.24 to 2.26], respectively). Lisdexamfetamine (mean difference [MD], -6.50 [CI, -8.82 to -4.18]) and SGAs (MD, -3.84 [CI, -6.55 to -1.13]) reduced binge-eating-related obsessions and compulsions, and SGAs reduced symptoms of depression (MD, -1.97 [CI, -3.67 to -0.28]). Headache, gastrointestinal upset, sleep disturbance, and sympathetic nervous system arousal occurred more frequently with lisdexamfetamine than placebo (relative risk range, 1.63 to 4.28). Other forms of cognitive behavioral therapy and topiramate also increased abstinence and reduced binge-eating frequency and related psychopathology. Topiramate reduced weight and increased sympathetic nervous system arousal, and lisdexamfetamine reduced weight and appetite. LIMITATIONS: Most study participants were overweight or obese white women aged 20 to 40 years. Many treatments were examined only in single studies. Outcomes were measured inconsistently across trials and rarely assessed beyond end of treatment. CONCLUSION: Cognitive behavioral therapy, lisdexamfetamine, SGAs, and topiramate reduced binge eating and related psychopathology, and lisdexamfetamine and topiramate reduced weight in adults with binge-eating disorder. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Comparative Benefits and Harms of Antidepressant, Psychological, Complementary, and Exercise Treatments for Major Depression: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer options other than second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The comparative benefits and harms of antidepressants and alternative treatments are unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants and psychological, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and exercise treatments as first- and second-step interventions for adults with acute MDD. DATA SOURCES: English-, German-, and Italian-language studies from multiple electronic databases (January 1990 to September 2015); trial registries and gray-literature databases were used to identify unpublished research. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently selected comparative randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration on health outcomes of adult outpatients; nonrandomized studies were eligible for harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers abstracted data on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes; rated the risk of bias; and graded the strength of evidence. A senior reviewer confirmed data and ratings. DATA SYNTHESIS: 45 trials met inclusion criteria. On the basis of moderate-strength evidence, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressants led to similar response rates (relative risk [RR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.07]) and remission rates (RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.73 to 1.32]). In trials, antidepressants had higher risks for adverse events than most other treatment options; no information from nonrandomized studies was available. The evidence was too limited to make firm conclusions about differences in the benefits and harms of antidepressants compared with other treatment options as first-step therapies for acute MDD. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptom relief. LIMITATION: High dropout rates, dosing inequalities, small sample sizes, and poor assessment of adverse events limit confidence in the evidence. CONCLUSION: Given their similar efficacy, CBT and antidepressants are both viable choices for initial treatment of MDD. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for Binge-Eating Disorder: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Psychological and pharmacological interventions for binge-eating disorder have previously demonstrated efficacy (compared with placebo or waitlist control); thus, we aimed to expand that literature with a review of comparative effectiveness. We searched MEDLINE,® EMBASE,® Cochrane Library, Academic OneFile, CINAHL® for binge-eating disorder treatment articles and selected studies using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were sufficient for network meta-analysis comparing two pharmacological interventions; psychological interventions were analysed qualitatively. In all, 28 treatment comparisons were included in this review: one pharmacological comparison (second-generation antidepressants versus lisdexamfetamine) and 26 psychological comparisons. Only three statistically significant differences emerged: lisdexamfetamine was better at increasing binge abstinence than second-generation antidepressants; therapist-led cognitive behavioural therapy was better at reducing binge-eating frequency than behavioural weight loss, but behavioural weight loss was better at reducing weight. The majority of other treatment comparisons revealed few significant differences between groups. Thus, patients and clinicians can choose from several effective treatment options. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.

Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 25% of patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) are readmitted within 30 days. PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and harms of transitional care interventions to reduce readmission and mortality rates for adults hospitalized with HF. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (1 January 1990 to late October 2013). STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently selected randomized, controlled trials published in English reporting a readmission or mortality rate within 6 months of an index hospitalization. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data, and another checked accuracy. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and graded strength of evidence (SOE). DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-seven trials were included. Most enrolled adults with moderate to severe HF and a mean age of 70 years. Few trials reported 30-day readmission rates. At 30 days, a high-intensity home-visiting program reduced all-cause readmission and the composite end point (all-cause readmission or death; low SOE). Over 3 to 6 months, home-visiting programs and multidisciplinary heart failure (MDS-HF) clinic interventions reduced all-cause readmission (high SOE). Home-visiting programs reduced HF-specific readmission and the composite end point (moderate SOE). Structured telephone support (STS) interventions reduced HF-specific readmission (high SOE) but not all-cause readmissions (moderate SOE). Home-visiting programs, MDS-HF clinics, and STS interventions produced a mortality benefit. Neither telemonitoring nor primarily educational interventions reduced readmission or mortality rates. LIMITATIONS: Few trials reported 30-day readmission rates. Usual care was heterogeneous and sometimes not adequately described. CONCLUSION: Home-visiting programs and MDS-HF clinics reduced all-cause readmission and mortality; STS reduced HF-specific readmission and mortality. These interventions should receive the greatest consideration by systems or providers seeking to implement transitional care interventions for persons with HF. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Interventions to improve adherence to self-administered medications for chronic diseases in the United States: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimum medication adherence is common in the United States and leads to serious negative health consequences but may respond to intervention. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of patient, provider, systems, and policy interventions that aim to improve medication adherence for chronic health conditions in the United States. DATA SOURCES: Eligible peer-reviewed publications from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library indexed through 4 June 2012 and additional studies from reference lists and technical experts. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of patient, provider, or systems interventions to improve adherence to long-term medications and nonrandomized studies of policy interventions to improve medication adherence. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently selected, extracted data from, and rated the risk of bias of relevant studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: The evidence was synthesized separately for each clinical condition; within each condition, the type of intervention was synthesized. Two reviewers graded the strength of evidence by using established criteria. From 4124 eligible abstracts, 62 trials of patient-, provider-, or systems-level interventions evaluated 18 types of interventions; another 4 observational studies and 1 trial of policy interventions evaluated the effect of reduced medication copayments or improved prescription drug coverage. Clinical conditions amenable to multiple approaches to improving adherence include hypertension, heart failure, depression, and asthma. Interventions that improve adherence across multiple clinical conditions include policy interventions to reduce copayments or improve prescription drug coverage, systems interventions to offer case management, and patient-level educational interventions with behavioral support. LIMITATIONS: Studies were limited to adults with chronic conditions (excluding HIV, AIDS, severe mental illness, and substance abuse) in the United States. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity hindered quantitative data pooling. CONCLUSION: Reduced out-of-pocket expenses, case management, and patient education with behavioral support all improved medication adherence for more than 1 condition. Evidence is limited on whether these approaches are broadly applicable or affect longterm medication adherence and health outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Comparative effectiveness of second-generation antidepressants for accompanying anxiety, insomnia, and pain in depressed patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often suffer from accompanying symptoms that influence the choice of pharmacotherapy with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). We conducted a systematic review to determine the comparative effectiveness of citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, and trazodone, for accompanying anxiety, insomnia, and pain in patients with MDD. METHODS: We conducted searches in multiple databases including MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and PsycINFO, from 1980 through August 2011 and reviewed reference lists of pertinent articles. We dually reviewed abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data. We included randomized, head-to-head trials of SGAs of at least 6 weeks' duration. We grouped SGAs into three classes for the analysis: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and others. We graded the strength of the evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We located 19 head-to-head trials in total: 11 on anxiety, six on insomnia, and four on pain. For the majority of comparisons, the strength of the evidence was moderate or low: evidence is weakened by inconsistency and imprecision. For treating anxiety, insomnia, and pain moderate evidence suggests that the SSRIs do not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence guiding the selection of an SGA based on accompanying symptoms of depression is limited. Very few trials were designed and adequately powered to answer questions about accompanying symptoms; analyses were generally of subgroups in larger MDD trials.

Clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: synthesis of guidance documents and the literature.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to synthesize best practices for addressing clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs). METHODS: We abstracted information from guidance documents and methods manuals made available by international organizations that develop systematic reviews and HTAs. We searched PubMed® to identify studies on clinical heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. Two authors independently abstracted and assessed relevant information. RESULTS: Methods manuals offer various definitions of clinical heterogeneity. In essence, clinical heterogeneity is considered variability in study population characteristics, interventions, and outcomes across studies. It can lead to effect-measure modification or statistical heterogeneity, which is defined as variability in estimated treatment effects beyond what would be expected by random error alone. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity are closely intertwined but they do not have a one-to-one relationship. The presence of statistical heterogeneity does not necessarily indicate that clinical heterogeneity is the causal factor. Methodological heterogeneity, biases, and random error can also cause statistical heterogeneity, alone or in combination with clinical heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying potential modifiers of treatment effects (i.e., effect-measure modifiers) is important for researchers conducting systematic reviews and HTAs. Recognizing clinical heterogeneity and clarifying its implications helps decision makers to identify patients and patient populations who benefit the most, who benefit the least, and who are at greatest risk of experiencing adverse outcomes from a particular intervention.

Comparative benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants for treating major depressive disorder: an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation antidepressants dominate the management of major depressive disorder (MDD), but evidence on the comparative benefits and harms of these agents is contradictory. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants for treating MDD in adults. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to August 2011 and reference lists of pertinent review articles and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: 2 independent reviewers identified randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration to evaluate efficacy and observational studies with at least 1000 participants to assess harm. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, and interventions and outcomes and rated study quality. A senior reviewer checked and confirmed extracted data and quality ratings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses and mixed-treatment comparisons of response to treatment and weighted mean differences were conducted on specific scales to rate depression. On the basis of 234 studies, no clinically relevant differences in efficacy or effectiveness were detected for the treatment of acute, continuation, and maintenance phases of MDD. No differences in efficacy were seen in patients with accompanying symptoms or in subgroups based on age, sex, ethnicity, or comorbid conditions. Individual drugs differed in onset of action, adverse events, and some measures of health-related quality of life. LIMITATIONS: Most trials were conducted in highly selected populations. Publication bias might affect the estimates of some comparisons. Mixed-treatment comparisons cannot conclusively exclude differences in efficacy. Evidence within subgroups was limited. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not warrant recommending a particular second-generation antidepressant on the basis of differences in efficacy. Differences in onset of action and adverse events may be considered when choosing a medication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Advancing the science of patient safety.

Despite a decade's worth of effort, patient safety has improved slowly, in part because of the limited evidence base for the development and widespread dissemination of successful patient safety practices. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored an international group of experts in patient safety and evaluation methods to develop criteria to improve the design, evaluation, and reporting of practice research in patient safety. This article reports the findings and recommendations of this group, which include greater use of theory and logic models, more detailed descriptions of interventions and their implementation, enhanced explanation of desired and unintended outcomes, and better description and measurement of context and of how context influences interventions. Using these criteria and measuring and reporting contexts will improve the science of patient safety.

Translating evidence-based interventions into practice: the design and development of the Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc. (MCAN).

Pediatric asthma is a multifactorial disease, requiring complex, interrelated interventions addressing children, families, schools, and communities. The Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc. (MCAN) is a nonprofit organization that provides support to translate evidence-based interventions from research to practice. MCAN developed the rationale and vision for the program through a phased approach, including an extensive literature review, stakeholder engagement, and evaluation of funding gaps. The analysis pointed to the need to identify pediatric asthma interventions implemented in urban U.S. settings that have demonstrated efficacy and materials for replication and to translate the interventions into wider practice. In addition to this overall MCAN objective, specific goals included service and system integration through linkages among health care providers, schools, community-based organizations, patients, parents, and other caregivers. MCAN selected sites based on demonstrated ability to implement effective interventions and to address multiple contexts of pediatric asthma prevention and management. Selected MCAN program sites were mature institutions or organizations with significant infrastructure, existing funding, and the ability to provide services without requiring a lengthy planning period. Program sites were located in communities with high asthma morbidity and intended to integrate new elements into existing programs to create comprehensive care approaches.

Comparative effectiveness research methods: symposium overview and summary.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in expanding its efforts to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research (CER), convened a second invitational symposium in June 2009 through its Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions About Effectiveness (DEcIDE) network. A distinguished Planning Committee set the agenda, reviewed more than 70 abstracts, and invited almost 30 speakers; the program emphasized issues of clinical heterogeneity and longitudinal outcomes, including patient-reported measures. RESULTS: Conference papers covered a varied set of points about 3 major areas of CER: study design and data collection issues; statistical and analytic techniques; and applications to policy and clinical decision-making. Both primary data collection and analyses of databases (including electronic health records and distributed networks) are crucial for the CER agenda. Methods advances enable investigators to pay greater attention to important population subgroups, including persons of low literacy, non-English speaking patients, or the frail elderly. Both established and newer statistical techniques--eg, propensity scoring and various types of modeling, including Bayesian approaches--offer analysts improved ways to address issues such as confounding and measurement bias. Finally, some articles provided guidance for and examples of extending CER into newer realms, such as evaluations of medical devices or surgical procedures, and providing better information for decision-makers, clinicians, and patients.

Outcomes and costs of community health worker interventions: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review on outcomes and costs of community health worker (CHW) interventions. CHWs are increasingly expected to improve health outcomes cost-effectively for the underserved. RESEARCH DESIGN: We searched Medline, Cochrane Collaboration resources, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for studies conducted in the United States and published in English from 1980 through November 2008. We dually reviewed abstracts, full-text articles, data abstractions, quality ratings, and strength of evidence grades and resolved disagreements by consensus. RESULTS: We included 53 studies on outcomes of CHW interventions and 6 on cost or cost-effectiveness. For outcomes, limited evidence (5 studies) suggests that CHW interventions can improve participant knowledge compared with alternative approaches or no intervention. We found mixed evidence for participant behavior change (22 studies) and health outcomes (27 studies). Some studies suggested that CHW interventions can result in greater improvements in participant behavior and health outcomes compared with various alternatives, but other studies suggested that CHW interventions provide no statistically different benefits than alternatives. We found low or moderate strength of evidence suggesting that CHWs can increase appropriate health care utilization for some interventions (30 studies). Six studies with economic information yielded insufficient data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CHW interventions relative to other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: CHWs can improve outcomes for underserved populations for some health conditions. The effectiveness of CHWs in many health care areas requires further research that addresses the methodologic limitations of prior studies and that contributes to translating research into practice.

REPRINT OF: Current Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: A Review of the Process.

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint of a previously published article. For citation purposes, please use the original publication details: Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3S):21-35. 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.

A systematic review of outcomes of maternal weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine recommendations: birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention.

This systematic review focuses on outcomes of gestational weight gain, specifically birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention, for singleton pregnancies with respect to the 1990 Institute of Medicine weight gain recommendations. A total of 35 studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. There was strong evidence to support associations between excessive gestational weight gain and increased birthweight and fetal growth (large for gestational age) as well as inadequate gestational weight gain and decreased birthweight and fetal growth (small for gestational age). There was moderate evidence to support the association between excessive gestational weight gain and postpartum weight retention. Clear clinical recommendations based on this review are challenging because of several limitations in the literature. Improvements in future research include the use of consistent definitions of gestational weight gain and outcomes of interest, assessment of confounders, and better collection of weight and weight gain data.

Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities.

PURPOSE: Introduce and explore issues at an international conference about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. METHODS: Review of salient literature, clinical and personal experiences, conference presentations and discussions, and post-conference comments from outside experts. RESULTS: PROs (information from patients about a health condition and its management) have been assessed through self-reports for at least four decades. Traditional applications are in clinical and health services research. Uses in clinical practice, although increasing, are less common and more challenging. PROs can enhance the understanding of patients' experiences and responses to therapy and inform clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: We pose and discuss four main questions: (1) Will clinicians accept PRO measures? (2) Will clinicians use PRO measures? (3) Will measuring PROs actually improve those outcomes? (4) Will PROs be perceived as having other, less salutary purposes? A patient-centered perspective on PRO measurement presents issues about the extent to which PROs can accurately capture patient experiences and assess psychosocial and environmental factors that influence communication with clinicians and eventual outcomes. We end with comments about the intersection of PROs and bioethics, noting contributions that PROs may make to beneficence, patient autonomy, and distributive justice.