3.8 Article

Cervical Screening: A Guideline for Clinical Practice in Ontario

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35242-2

关键词

HPV testing; cervical cancer screening; cancer prevention

资金

  1. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care through Cancer Care Ontario
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. Graceway Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To develop guidelines to inform the Ontario Cervical Screening Program's invitations to women in the target population, provide evidence-based clinical practice guidance for practitioners, and inform policy decisions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of relevant websites, the Medline and EMBASE databases (2005 to November 2010), and the Cochrane Library (2005 to 2010). No guidelines or systematic reviews were located that addressed the topics of interest. The evidence base consisted of seven randomized controlled trials, three case-control studies, one cohort study, and one review article. A methodologist performed data identification and extraction. Review of the data and quality assessment was carried out by the authors, who have expertise in methodology, gynaecologic oncology, pathology, and family medicine. The systematic review methods and resulting recommendations were reviewed by an internal panel with clinical, methodological, and oncology expertise. External review was provided by Ontario clinicians and other experts. Conclusions: The guideline development process led to recommendations for the optimal primary cervical screening method, screening interval, and age of screening cessation for Ontario women in the target population. There was insufficient evidence to provide a recommendation for age of initiation of cervical screening with HPV testing. The creation of an organized screening program in the province will allow the implementation of evidence-based recommendations. We provide interim recommendations for cervical screening until HPV testing has been funded.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据