Author
Lucy N. Marion
Other affiliations: University of Massachusetts Lowell, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, University of South Carolina ...read more
Bio: Lucy N. Marion is an academic researcher from Georgia Regents University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Health care. The author has an hindex of 32, co-authored 70 publications receiving 7035 citations. Previous affiliations of Lucy N. Marion include University of Massachusetts Lowell & University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
Topics: Population, Health care, Nurse education, Nursing research, Weight loss
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Dartmouth College1, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center2, HealthPartners3, University of Missouri4, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai5, Georgia Regents University6, Arizona State University7, Baylor College of Medicine8, University of Massachusetts Medical School9, University of California, San Francisco10, University of Pennsylvania11, University of Minnesota12
TL;DR: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer.
Abstract: Description: Update of the 2002 U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population. Methods: The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. Recommendations: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement)
1,405 citations
••
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment1, University of Southern California2, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center3, Dartmouth College4, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center5, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill6, Regions Hospital7, University of Missouri8, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai9, University of Michigan10, Georgia Regents University11, Arizona State University12, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston13, University of Massachusetts Medical School14, University of California, San Francisco15
TL;DR: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer.
Abstract: DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for colorectal cancer. METHODS To update its recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review on 4 selected questions relating to test characteristics and benefits and harms of screening technologies, and 2) a decision analytic modeling analysis using population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of available screening modalities when used in a programmatic way over time. RECOMMENDATIONS The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefits of these screening methods vary. (A recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer in adults 76 to 85 years of age. There may be considerations that support colorectal cancer screening in an individual patient. (C recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against screening for colorectal cancer in adults older than age 85 years. (D recommendation). The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer. (I statement).
1,347 citations
••
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality1, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment2, Arizona State University3, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center4, Dartmouth College5, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center6, Group Health Cooperative7, Regions Hospital8, University of Missouri9, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai10, Georgia Regents University11, Baylor College of Medicine12, University of Massachusetts Medical School13, University of California, San Francisco14, University of Pennsylvania15, University of Minnesota16
1,087 citations
••
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment1, Arizona State University2, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center3, Johns Hopkins University4, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center5, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill6, HealthPartners7, University of Missouri8, University of Michigan9, Georgia Regents University10, Baylor College of Medicine11, University of Massachusetts Medical School12, University of California, San Francisco13, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai14, Merck & Co.15
TL;DR: Review of the literature since 2002, focusing on new evidence on the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and stroke, concluded that evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and Harm in men and women 80 years or older.
Abstract: DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about the use of aspirin for the prevention of coronary heart disease. METHODS Review of the literature since 2002, focusing on new evidence on the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and stroke. The new evidence was reviewed and synthesized according to sex. RECOMMENDATIONS Encourage men age 45 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in myocardial infarctions outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Encourage women age 55 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in ischemic strokes outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention in men and women 80 years or older. (I statement) Do not encourage aspirin use for cardiovascular disease prevention in women younger than 55 years and in men younger than 45 years. (D recommendation).
473 citations
••
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality1, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment2, Kaiser Permanente3, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center4, Johns Hopkins University5, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center6, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill7, National Quality Forum8, University of Missouri9, University of Michigan10, Georgia Regents University11, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston12, University of Massachusetts Medical School13, University of California, San Francisco14, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai15, Merck & Co.16
TL;DR: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that the benefits of screening nonpregnant women at increased risk are substantial and that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely screening men.
Abstract: Description Update of 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations about screening sexually active adolescents and adults for chlamydial infection Methods The USPSTF weighed the benefits (improved fertility, pregnancy outcomes, and infection transmission) and harms (anxiety, relationship problems, and unnecessary treatment of false-positive results) of chlamydial screening identified in their 2001 recommendations and the accompanying systematic review of English-language articles published between July 2000 and July 2005 Recommendations Screen for chlamydial infection in all sexually active nonpregnant young women age 24 years or younger and for older nonpregnant women who are at increased risk (A recommendation) Screen for chlamydial infection in all pregnant women age 24 years or younger and in older pregnant women who are at increased risk (B recommendation) Do not routinely screen for chlamydial infection in women age 25 years or older, regardless of whether they are pregnant, if they are not at increased risk (C recommendation) Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for chlamydial infection for men (I statement)
214 citations
Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.
9,618 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, a randomized clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (MDE) on the risk of stroke.
Abstract: ABI
: ankle–brachial index
ACCORD
: Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes
ADVANCE
: Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation
AGREE
: Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation
AHA
: American Heart Association
apoA1
: apolipoprotein A1
apoB
: apolipoprotein B
CABG
: coronary artery bypass graft surgery
CARDS
: Collaborative AtoRvastatin Diabetes Study
CCNAP
: Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions
CHARISMA
: Clopidogrel for High Athero-thrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilisation, Management, and Avoidance
CHD
: coronary heart disease
CKD
: chronic kidney disease
COMMIT
: Clopidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial
CRP
: C-reactive protein
CURE
: Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events
CVD
: cardiovascular disease
DALYs
: disability-adjusted life years
DBP
: diastolic blood pressure
DCCT
: Diabetes Control and Complications Trial
ED
: erectile dysfunction
eGFR
: estimated glomerular filtration rate
EHN
: European Heart Network
EPIC
: European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
EUROASPIRE
: European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention through Intervention to Reduce Events
GFR
: glomerular filtration rate
GOSPEL
: Global Secondary Prevention Strategies to Limit Event Recurrence After MI
GRADE
: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
HbA1c
: glycated haemoglobin
HDL
: high-density lipoprotein
HF-ACTION
: Heart Failure and A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise TraiNing
HOT
: Hypertension Optimal Treatment Study
HPS
: Heart Protection Study
HR
: hazard ratio
hsCRP
: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein
HYVET
: Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial
ICD
: International Classification of Diseases
IMT
: intima-media thickness
INVEST
: International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril
JTF
: Joint Task Force
LDL
: low-density lipoprotein
Lp(a)
: lipoprotein(a)
LpPLA2
: lipoprotein-associated phospholipase 2
LVH
: left ventricular hypertrophy
MATCH
: Management of Atherothrombosis with Clopidogrel in High-risk Patients with Recent Transient Ischaemic Attack or Ischaemic Stroke
MDRD
: Modification of Diet in Renal Disease
MET
: metabolic equivalent
MONICA
: Multinational MONItoring of trends and determinants in CArdiovascular disease
NICE
: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence
NRT
: nicotine replacement therapy
NSTEMI
: non-ST elevation myocardial infarction
ONTARGET
: Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial
OSA
: obstructive sleep apnoea
PAD
: peripheral artery disease
PCI
: percutaneous coronary intervention
PROactive
: Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events
PWV
: pulse wave velocity
QOF
: Quality and Outcomes Framework
RCT
: randomized clinical trial
RR
: relative risk
SBP
: systolic blood pressure
SCORE
: Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation Project
SEARCH
: Study of the Effectiveness of Additional Reductions in Cholesterol and
SHEP
: Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program
STEMI
: ST-elevation myocardial infarction
SU.FOL.OM3
: SUpplementation with FOlate, vitamin B6 and B12 and/or OMega-3 fatty acids
Syst-Eur
: Systolic Hypertension in Europe
TNT
: Treating to New Targets
UKPDS
: United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study
VADT
: Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial
VALUE
: Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use
VITATOPS
: VITAmins TO Prevent Stroke
VLDL
: very low-density lipoprotein
WHO
: World Health Organization
### 1.1 Introduction
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a chronic disorder developing insidiously throughout life and usually progressing to an advanced stage by the time symptoms occur. It remains the major cause of premature death in Europe, even though CVD mortality has …
7,482 citations
••
TL;DR: ABI is ankle-brachial (blood pressure) index and ABPM is ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as mentioned in this paper ; ACCORD is action to control cardiovascular risk in Diabetes and Vascular disease.
Abstract: ABI
: ankle–brachial (blood pressure) index
ABPM
: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
ACCORD
: Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes
ACE-I
: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor
ACS
: acute coronary syndromes
ADVANCE
: Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: PreterAx
4,352 citations
••
TL;DR: Harmon S. Jordan, ScD, Lev Nevo, MD, Janusz Wnek, PhD Jeffrey L. Anderson,MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect, Nancy M. Halperin, PhD.
4,105 citations
••
TL;DR: The ACC and AHA have collaborated with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and stakeholder and professional organizations to develop guidelines, standards, and policies that promote optimal patient care and cardiovascular health.
Abstract: Preamble and Transition to ACC/AHA Guidelines to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk S50
The goals of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) are to prevent cardiovascular diseases (CVD); improve the management of people who have these diseases through professional education and research; and develop guidelines, standards, and policies that promote optimal patient care and cardiovascular health. Toward these objectives, the ACC and AHA have collaborated with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and stakeholder and professional organizations to develop …
3,524 citations