Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28789659›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2017

Consistency and sources of divergence in recommendations on screening with questionnaires for presently experienced health problems or symptoms: a comparison of recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, UK National Screening Committee, and US Preventive Services Task Force.

Brett D Thombs, Nazanin Saadat, Kira E Riehm, Justin Michael Karter, Akansha Vaswani, Bonnie K Andrews, Peter Simons, Lisa Cosgrove

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Depression Screening and Health Outcomes in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Cost-Effectiveness of Perinatal Depression Screening: A Scoping Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Perinatal mental health: a review of progress and challenges.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Brett D ThombsDepartment of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. brett.thombs@mcgill.ca.
Nazanin SaadatLady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Kira E RiehmLady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Justin Michael KarterDepartment of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Akansha VaswaniDepartment of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Bonnie K AndrewsDepartment of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Peter SimonsDepartment of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Lisa CosgroveDepartment of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, health screening recommendations have gone beyond screening for early-stage, asymptomatic disease to include "screening" for presently experienced health problems and symptoms using self-report questionnaires. We examined recommendations from three major national guideline organizations to determine the consistency of recommendations, identify sources of divergent recommendations, and determine if guideline organizations have identified any direct randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence for the effectiveness of questionnaire-based screening.

methodsWe reviewed recommendation statements listed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UKNSC), and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) as of 5 September 2016. Eligible recommendations focused on using self-report questionnaires to identify patients with presently experienced health problems or symptoms. Within each recommendation and accompanying evidence review we identified screening RCTs.

resultsWe identified 22 separate recommendations on questionnaire-based screening, including three CTFPHC recommendations against screening, eight UKNSC recommendations against screening, four USPSTF recommendations in favor of screening (alcohol misuse, adolescent depression, adult depression, intimate partner violence), and seven USPSTF recommendations that did not recommend for or against screening. In the four cases where the USPSTF recommended screening, either the CTFPHC, the UKNSC, or both recommended against. When recommendations diverged, the USPSTF expressed confidence in benefits based on indirect evidence, evaluated potential harms as minimal, and did not consider cost or resource use. CTFPHC and UKNSC recommendations against screening, on the other hand, focused on the lack of direct evidence of benefit and raised concerns about harms to patients and resource use. Of six RCTs that directly evaluated screening interventions, five did not report any statistically significant primary or secondary health outcomes in favor of screening, and one trial reported equivocal results.

conclusionsOnly the USPSTF has made any recommendations for screening with questionnaires for presently experienced problems or symptoms. The CTFPHC and UKNSC recommended against screening in all of their recommendations. Differences in recommendations appear to reflect differences in willingness to assume benefit from indirect evidence and different approaches to assessing possible harms and resource consumption. There were no examples in any recommendations of RCTs with direct evidence of improved health outcomes.

Indexed as

Health Planning GuidelinesMass ScreeningSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAdvisory CommitteesAsymptomatic DiseasesCanadaChildDepressive DisorderHumansPreventive Health ServicesUnited KingdomUnited StatesHealthcare guidelinesPreventive healthcareScreeningSelf-report questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28789659
PMCPMC5549533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.