Quality of decision aids developed for women at average risk of breast cancer eligible for mammographic screening: Systematic review and assessment according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument.

Mammographic screening contributes to a reduction in specific mortality, but it has disadvantages. Decision aids are tools designed to support people's decisions. Because these aids influence patient choice, their quality is crucial. The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of decision aids developed for women eligible for mammographic screening who have an average breast cancer risk and to assess the quality of these aids. The systematic review included articles published between January 1, 1997, and August 1, 2019, in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycInfo databases. The studies were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Any study containing a decision aid for women eligible for mammographic screening with an average breast cancer risk was included. Two double-blind reviewers assessed the quality of the selected decision aids using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument, version 3 (IPDASi). Twenty-three decision aids were extracted. Classification of decision aid quality using the IPDASi demonstrated large variations among the decision aids (maximum IPDASi score, 188; mean ± SD score, 132.6 ± 23.8; range, 85-172). Three decision aids had high overall scores. The 3 best-rated dimensions were disclosure (maximum score, 8; mean score, 6.8), focusing on transparency; information (maximum score, 32; mean score, 26.1), focusing on the provision of sufficient details; and probabilities (maximum score, 32; mean score 25), focusing on the presentation of probabilities. The 3 lowest-rated dimensions were decision support technology evaluation (maximum score, 8; mean score, 4.3), focusing on the effectiveness of the decision aid; development (maximum score, 24; mean score, 12.6), evaluating the development process; and plain language (maximum score, 4; mean score, 1.9), assessing appropriateness for patients with low literacy. The results of this review identified 3 high-quality decision aids for breast cancer screening.

Weak Cross-Lineage Neutralization by Anti SARS-CoV-2 Spike Antibodies after Natural Infection or Vaccination Is Rescued by Repeated Immunological Stimulation.

After over one year of evolution, through billions of infections in humans, SARS-CoV-2 has evolved into a score of slightly divergent lineages. A few different amino acids in the spike proteins of these lineages can hamper both natural immunity against reinfection, and vaccine efficacy. In this study, the in vitro neutralizing potency of sera from convalescent COVID-19 patients and vaccinated subjects was analyzed against six different SARS-CoV-2 lineages, including the latest B.1.617.2 (or Delta variant), in order to assess the cross-neutralization by anti-spike antibodies. After both single dose vaccination, or natural infection, the neutralizing activity was low and fully effective only against the original lineage, while a double dose or a single dose of vaccine, even one year after natural infection, boosted the cross-neutralizing activity against different lineages. Neither binding, nor the neutralizing activity of sera after vaccination, could predict vaccine failure, underlining the need for additional immunological markers. This study points at the importance of the anamnestic response and repeated vaccine stimulations to elicit a reasonable cross-lineage neutralizing antibody response.