1. Practice Guidelines The Good, The Not-So-Good The Ugly 1

2. Where do practice guidelines come from? Trust us, we’re the experts: Opinion-based/ consensus guidelines Whose opinion? Do they have a conflict of interest? What is their perspective? Trust us, we have the evidence: “Evidence- based” How was the evidence used? Patient-oriented? Values? Evidence-linked: Here is how we found the evidence, used the evidence Strength of recommendation noted

3. Guidelines: Ultimately a social exercise Evidence: It is what it is The human touch: Social judgment layered on top of the evidence 3

4. Breast Cancer Screening and the USPSTF The Evidence

5. How They Arrived at these Conclusions Meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Invited a total of 348,219 women at age 40 yrs for yearly screening 0-3 studies, individually, showed a decrease in breast cancer mortality Meta-analysis: Combining results from all trials and analyzing the results Results:

6. Figure. Nelson HD. Screening for breast cancer: An update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:727-737.

7. Benefits 10,000 women ages 40-49 yrs screened yearly USPSTF Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):716-726

8. USPSTF Recommendation Grades, 2009

9. USPSTF Recommendation Statement: Breast Cancer Screening

10. Why Does The Benefit Seem To Be So Small?

11. Breast cancer mortality vs all causes of mortality, all ages Black WC, et al. All-Cause Mortality in Randomized Trials of Cancer Screening. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 94, No. 3, 167-173, February 6, 2002

12. Causes of death in women, by age Bunker JP, Houghton J, Baum M. Putting the risk of breast cancer in perspective. BMJ 1998;317:1307-9.

13. But What About “1-in-8”? Ave lifespan = 79 years Bunker JP, et al. Putting the risk of breast cancer in perspective. BMJ 1998;317:1307-9.

14. Risks 10,000 women ages 40-49 yrs screened yearly USPSTF Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):716-726

15. Pseudodisease (overdiagnosis) A condition that looks just like the disease, but never would have bothered the patient Disease that would never cause symptoms Asymptomatic disease in people who will die from another cause before disease presents An estimated 10%-30% of breast cancers found and treated would have never affected the patients The question: which ones? Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2009;CD001877 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub3

16. Overdiagnosis bias Gigerenzer G, et al. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2008;8(2):53-96.

17. Evaluating Screening Tests Evidence Sensitivity & specificity Does it change diagnoses? Does it change treatment? Does it change outcomes? Judgment: Is it worthwhile (to an individual and/or society)? Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11:88-94

18. 18 Can We Trust Guidelines from Specialty Societies? Or Never ask a barber if you need a haircut

19. “... The guild of health care professionals – including their specialty societies – has a primary responsibility to promote its members’ interests... Quanstrum KH, Hayward RA. Lessons from the mammography wars. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1076-1079 19

20. ... It is a fool’s dream to expect the guild of any service industry to harness its self-interest and to act according to beneficence alone – to compete on true value when the opportunity to inflate perceived value is readily available.” Quanstrum KH, Hayward RA. Lessons from the mammography wars. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1076-1079 20

21. Screening for breast cancer: yearly at age 40 American College of Radiology Society of Breast Imaging American Society of Breast Disease American Cancer Society ACOG

22. “Evidence-based” and the evolution of evidence: subclinical hypothyroidism Step 1 Search of 10 databases Studies summarized 12 experts rated the evidence Recommendations: “Recommend against routine screening for subclinical hypothyroidism” “Recommend against routine treatment of 4.5 – 10.0 mIU/L” Surks MI, et al. Subclinical thyroid disease. Scientific Review and Guidelines for diagnosis and management. JAMA 2004;291:228-238.

23. “Evidence-based” and the evolution of evidence: subclinical hypothyroidism Step 2: Consensus meeting among members of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The American Thyroid Association, and The Endocrine Society. New recommendation statement Recommendations sent to leadership of the organizations

24. The evolution of evidence: subclinical hypothyroidism The result: New recommendations from the three societies: Most patients with TSH levels 4.5 – 10 mIU/L should be treated Shouldperform routine screening for subclinical hypothyroidism Why? “Although good evidence is unavailable [to support our recommendation], there is a sizable amount of fair evidence and an abundance of opinion by experts... The [scientific panel recommendations] are contrary to the practice of many... experts” Gharib H, et al. Consensus statement: Subclinical thyroid dysfunction: A joint statement on management from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The American Thyroid Association, and The Endocrine Society. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:581-5.

25. Bilirubin in term infants (Sept 2009) USPSTF: Summary of Recommendation “The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend screening infants for hyperbilirubinemia to prevent chronic bilirubin encephalopathy” American Academy of Pediatrics Restatement and Clarification “...We recommend universal predischarge bilirubin screening,which helps to assess the risk of subsequent severehyperbilirubinemia. We also recommend a more structured approachto management and follow-up according to the predischarge TSB/TcB,gestational age, and other risk factors for hyperbilirubinemia.These recommendations represent a consensus of expert opinionbased on the available evidence, and they are supported by severalindependent reviewers. Nevertheless, their efficacy in preventingkernicterus and their cost-effectiveness are unknown. “

26. Evidence Linked Guidelines Brief Summary Statement for each recommendation Detailed Discussion of the evidence Long Reference section pointing to original research Methods section showing how evidence was obtained and evaluated

27. Evidence Linked Guidelines Brief statement Detailed overview of the evidence Evidence table

28. 28 National Guideline Clearinghouse www.ngc.gov Vetted guidelines from various groups Standard organization so that information can be compared across various guidelines