...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Public Health >A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice
【24h】

A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice

机译:对基于U.S.的结肠直肠癌筛选的系统审查筛选介入系统评价:可用证据和研究和实践的经验教训

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background: We examined colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) intervention effectiveness, through the effect sizes associated with: (1) screening modality, (2) intervention level (e.g., client-directed), and (3) intervention component (e.g. client reminders) within published CRCS intervention systematic reviews (SRs). Methods: A search of peer-reviewed CRCS SRs that were written in English was employed utilizing five databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, rTIPS, PubMed, and PsycINFO EBSCOHOST. SRs that included CRCS interventions with a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, or single arm design were eligible. Data on effect sizes by screening modality, intervention level, and intervention component were extracted and synthesized. Results: There were 16 eligible CRCS intervention SRs that included 116 studies published between 1986 and 2013. Reviews organized data by CRCS screening modality, or intervention component. Effect size reporting varied by format (i.e., ranges, medians of multiple studies, or effect size per study), and groupings of modalities and components. Overall, the largest effect sizes were for studies that utilized a combination of colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and sigmoidoscopy as screening options (16-45 percentage point difference). Conclusions: Evidence suggests that CRCS interventions which include a combination of screening modalities may be most effective. This is the first SR to examine effect sizes of published CRCS SRs. However, because some SRs did not report effect sizes and there were tremendous variability reporting formats among those that did, a standard reporting format is warranted. Synthesizing findings can contribute to improved knowledge of evidence-based best-practices, direct translation of findings into policy and practice, and guide further research in CRCS.
机译:背景:通过与:(1)筛选模态,(2)干预级别(例如,客户指导)和(3)干预组件(例如客户提醒)(例如客户提醒)(例如客户提醒)(例如客户提醒)(例如客户提醒)(例如,客户提醒)(例如客户提醒)(例如客户提醒)的效果大小检查了结肠直肠癌筛查效果在已发布的CRCS干预系统中,系统评论(SRS)。方法:采用五个数据库,使用五个数据库进行对同行评审的CRCS SRS搜索,其中包括五个数据库:Cinahl,Cochrane图书馆,RTIPS,PubMed和Psycinfo EBSCohost。包括具有随机对照试验,准实验或单臂设计的CRCS干预的SRS符合条件。通过筛选模态,干预水平和干预组分的效果尺寸的数据进行了提取和合成。结果:有16个符合条件的CRCS干预SRS,其中包括1986年至2013年间发布的116项研究。评论通过CRCS筛选模型或干预组成部分组织数据。效果尺寸报告的格式(即范围,多种研究的中位数,或每项研究的效果大小),以及模态和组件的分组。总体而言,最大的效果大小用于利用结肠镜检查,粪便潜血血液试验(FOBT)和Sigmoidoctoce的组合作为筛选选项(16-45个百分点)。结论:证据表明,包括筛查方式组合的CRC干预可能是最有效的。这是第一个检查发布的CRCS SRS效果大小的SR。但是,由于某些SRS没有报告效果大小,并且存在巨大的变化报告格式,因此有一个标准的报告格式。合成调查结果可以有助于改善基于证据的最佳实践的知识,对政策和实践的指导调查结果的直接翻译,以及指导CRC的进一步研究。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号