Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16477910›Full record

ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2006

[The periodic health examination: a comparison of United States and Canadian recommendations].

Cléo Mavriplis, Guylène Thériault

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Competing demands and opportunities in primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2017
    Article
  2. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2017
    Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Cléo MavriplisL'unite de Médecine Familiale de Gatineau Affilieé a l'Univerité McGill. cleomavr@magma.ca
Guylène Thériault

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care with those of the United States Preventive Services Task Force for periodic health examinations (PHEs), following the usual sequence of a medical interview. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Each task force reviewed the literature exhaustively and created a system of classification that indicated the quality of the evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: Two tables sum up the conclusions of the task forces with respect to preventive measures to be included in PHEs: one for adults generally and one for women specifically. Three other tables show measures for which recommendations are different or conflicting, as well as measures that might be excluded. Several forms and other materials for PHEs based on these comparisons can be found at http://medecinefamiliale.com/umf/emc/emp_guide.htm. Many recommendations are similar; in spite of this, many physicians fail to include them in PHEs. Certain factors could explain the differences between the recommendations, including the challenge of arriving at a standard scientific process for reviewing data, the fact that formulating recommendations is a social as well as a scientific process, and the fact that the CTFPHC is seriously underfunded.

conclusionA scientific review of the literature, even when performed by experts using strict criteria, is not easy to standardize. The differences that our comparison revealed, some of which are substantial, highlight the need to further examine how recommendations are formulated. More research in this field would be helpful.

Indexed as

Physical ExaminationPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary PreventionAdultAgedCanadaFamily PracticeHumansMiddle AgedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID16477910
PMCPMC1479730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.