Topic
Mass screening
About: Mass screening is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 34508 publications have been published within this topic receiving 1365148 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: Self-reports are reasonably accurate for certain chronic conditions and for routine screening exams and can provide a useful estimate for broad measures of population prevalence.
571 citations
TL;DR: Routine screening for group B streptococcus during pregnancy prevents more cases of early-onset disease than the risk-based approach, and recommendations that endorse both strategies as equivalent warrant reconsideration.
Abstract: Background Guidelines issued in 1996 in the United States recommend either screening of pregnant women for group B streptococcal colonization by means of cultures (screening approach) or assessing clinical risk factors (risk-based approach) to identify candidates for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. Methods In a multistate retrospective cohort study, we compared the effectiveness of the screening and risk-based approaches in preventing early-onset group B streptococcal disease (in infants less than seven days old). We studied a stratified random sample of the 629,912 live births in 1998 and 1999 in eight geographical areas where there was active surveillance for group B streptococcal infection, including all births in which the neonate had early-onset disease. Women with no documented culture for group B streptococcus were considered to have been cared for according to the risk-based approach. Results We studied 5144 births, including 312 in which the newborn had early-onset group B streptococcal disea...
570 citations
TL;DR: The CES-D has acceptable screening accuracy in the general population or primary care settings, but it should not be used as an isolated diagnostic measure of depression.
Abstract: Objective
We aimed to collect and meta-analyse the existing evidence regarding the performance of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) for detecting depression in general population and primary care settings.
Method
Systematic literature search in PubMed and PsychINFO. Eligible studies were: a) validation studies of screening questionnaires with information on the accuracy of the CES-D; b) samples from general populations or primary care settings; c) standardized diagnostic interviews following standard classification systems used as gold standard; and d) English or Spanish language of publication. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio were estimated for several cut-off points using bivariate mixed effects models for each threshold. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was estimated with Rutter and Gatsonis mixed effects models; area under the curve was calculated. Quality of the studies was assessed with the QUADAS tool. Causes of heterogeneity were evaluated with the Rutter and Gatsonis mixed effects model including each covariate at a time.
Results
28 studies (10,617 participants) met eligibility criteria. The median prevalence of Major Depression was 8.8% (IQ range from 3.8% to 12.6%). The overall area under the curve was 0.87. At the cut-off 16, sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82–0.92), specificity 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65–0.75), and DOR 16.2 (95% CI: 10.49–25.10). Better trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity were observed (Sensitivity = 0.83, Specificity = 0.78, diagnostic odds ratio = 16.64) for cut-off 20. None of the variables assessed as possible sources of heterogeneity was found to be statistically significant.
Conclusion
The CES-D has acceptable screening accuracy in the general population or primary care settings, but it should not be used as an isolated diagnostic measure of depression. Depending on the test objectives, the cut-off 20 may be more adequate than the value of 16, which is typically recommended.
569 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors have developed guidelines for high-risk HPV test requirements for primary cervical screening and validation guidelines for candidate HPV assays, which are based on the data from various large screening studies and can be used to guide the translation of highrisk HPV testing into clinical practice by setting standards of test performance and characteristics.
Abstract: Given the strong etiologic link between high-risk HPV infection and cervical cancer high-risk HPV testing is now being considered as an alternative for cytology-based cervical cancer screening. Many test systems have been developed that can detect the broad spectrum of hrHPV types in one assay. However, for screening purposes the detection of high-risk HPV is not inherently useful unless it is informative for the presence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2/3) or cancer. Candidate high-risk HPV tests to be used for screening should reach an optimal balance between clinical sensitivity and specificity for detection of high-grade CIN and cervical cancer to minimize redundant or excessive follow-up procedures for high-risk HPV positive women without cervical lesions. Data from various large screening studies have shown that high-risk HPV testing by hybrid capture 2 and GP5+/6+-PCR yields considerably better results in the detection of CIN 2/3 than cytology. The data from these studies can be used to guide the translation of high-risk HPV testing into clinical practice by setting standards of test performance and characteristics. On the basis of these data we have developed guidelines for high-risk HPV test requirements for primary cervical screening and validation guidelines for candidate HPV assays.
569 citations
TL;DR: Comparison of the detection rate and positive predictive values of HPV assay with cytology and the best management strategy for HPV-positive women found HPV testing was more sensitive than borderline or worse cytology but less specific for detecting CIN2+.
568 citations