Presenting Benefits and Downsides to Facilitate High-Quality Decision-Making About Cancer Screening
A partir d'une revue systématique des recommandations publiées jusqu'en juillet 2015 par 5 institutions savantes américaines, cette étude analyse les modalités de présentation des bénéfices et des risques associés aux tests ou examens de dépistage des cancers ainsi qu'aux traitements préventifs
In this issue of the Journal, Caverly and colleagues examine how US clinical practice guidelines present the benefits and downsides of five major cancer screening topics: breast, cervical, colon, lung, and prostate cancer screening (1). They reviewed 32 guidelines from major organizations, including the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Cancer Society, the American College of Physicians, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Notably, they found that less than one-third of positive recommendations presented both benefits and downsides in an appropriate manner, defined as the use of comparable absolute effects. The remaining recommendations either had incomplete information or presented the benefits and harms asymmetrically, such as showing benefits in terms of relative risk reduction and harms in terms of absolute risk increases. Caverly and colleagues concluded that improved presentation of benefits and downsides in guidelines “would better ensure that clinicians and patients have access to the information required for making informed decisions.”
Journal of the National Cancer Institute , éditorial en libre accès, 2016