Sobrediagnóstico: "Un mal que daña a nuestros niños" / First do no harm: overdiagnosis in Pediatrics

Pueden cometerse muchos errores en el momento de hacer un diagnóstico: subdiagnosticar, hacer un diagnóstico equivocado y sobrediagnosticar. Mientras que el subdiagnóstico y el diagnóstico equivocado son errores obvios, cuando se sobrediagnostica se descubre una anomalía real, pero la detección no beneficia al paciente. El daño ocurre cuando se continúa evaluando al paciente y se lo trata innecesariamente por una afección que, de no haberse diagnosticado, nunca lo habría afectado. Son varios los fenómenos que apuntan a un posible sobrediagnóstico: que la demora u omisión de un diagnóstico no ocasione daños; que aumente la detección de una enfermedad, pero no haya cambios en los resultados, y que los estudios aleatorizados no muestren ningún beneficio con el diagnóstico.Hay quienes dirían que el saber siempre reporta beneficios, pero los efectos adversos del sobrediagnóstico están bien documentados. Tendremos que adquirir más conocimientos sobre el daño que puede generar el sobrediagnóstico y transmitirlos a nuestros colegas, y deberemos aprender a encontrar el equilibrio entre el posible beneficio de un diagnóstico y el riesgo del sobrediagnóstico.

Many errors can be made in diagnosis: underdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and overdiagnosis. While underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis are clear errors, in overdiagnosis, a true abnormality is discovered, but detection does not benefit the patient. Harm occurs when patients are further evaluated and treated unnecessarily as a result of making a diagnosis that would never have affected the patient if the diagnosis had not been made. Several phenomena point to potential overdiagnosis: when delayed or missed diagnoses do not result in harm; when there is increased detection of a disease, but no change in the outcome; and when randomized trials show no benefit from the diagnosis. Some might say that there is always benefit in knowing, but the adverse effects of overdiagnosis are well documented. We will need to educate ourselves and our colleagues about the potential for harm from overdiagnosis, and learn how to balance the potential benefit of a diagnosis against the risk of overdiagnosis.

First do no harm: overdiagnosis in Pediatrics. / Sobrediagnóstico: "Un mal que daña a nuestros niños".

Many errors can be made in diagnosis: underdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and overdiagnosis. While underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis are clear errors, in overdiagnosis, a true abnormality is discovered, but detection does not benefit the patient. Harm occurs when patients are further evaluated and treated unnecessarily as a result of making a diagnosis that would never have affected the patient if the diagnosis had not been made. Several phenomena point to potential overdiagnosis: when delayed or missed diagnoses do not result in harm; when there is increased detection of a disease, but no change in the outcome; and when randomized trials show no benefit from the diagnosis. Some might say that there is always benefit in knowing, but the adverse effects of overdiagnosis are well documented. We will need to educate ourselves and our colleagues about the potential for harm from overdiagnosis, and learn how to balance the potential benefit of a diagnosis against the risk of overdiagnosis.

Pueden cometerse muchos errores en el momento de hacer un diagnóstico: subdiagnosticar, hacer un diagnóstico equivocado y sobrediagnosticar. Mientras que el subdiagnóstico y el diagnóstico equivocado son errores obvios, cuando se sobrediagnostica se descubre una anomalía real, pero la detección no beneficia al paciente. El daño ocurre cuando se continúa evaluando al paciente y se lo trata innecesariamente por una afección que, de no haberse diagnosticado, nunca lo habría afectado. Son varios los fenómenos que apuntan a un posible sobrediagnóstico: que la demora u omisión de un diagnóstico no ocasione daños; que aumente la detección de una enfermedad, pero no haya cambios en los resultados, y que los estudios aleatorizados no muestren ningún beneficio con el diagnóstico.Hay quienes dirían que el saber siempre reporta beneficios, pero los efectos adversos del sobrediagnóstico están bien documentados. Tendremos que adquirir más conocimientos sobre el daño que puede generar el sobrediagnóstico y transmitirlos a nuestros colegas, y deberemos aprender a encontrar el equilibrio entre el posible beneficio de un diagnóstico y el riesgo del sobrediagnóstico.

Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines: Update of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Policies and Procedures.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) provides independent, objective, and scientifically rigorous recommendations for clinical preventive services. A primary concern is to avoid even the appearance of members having special interests that might influence their ability to judge evidence and formulate unbiased recommendations. The conflicts of interest policy for the USPSTF is described, as is the formal process by which best practices were incorporated to update the policy. The USPSTF performed a literature review, conducted key informant interviews, and reviewed conflicts of interest policies of ten similar organizations. Important findings included transparency and public accessibility; full disclosure of financial relationships; disclosure of non-financial relationships (that create the potential for bias and compromise a member's objective judgment); disclosure of family members' conflicts of interests; and establishment of appropriate reporting periods. Controversies in best practices include the threshold of financial disclosures, ease of access to conflicts of interest policies and declarations, vague definition of non-financial biases, and request for family members' conflicts of interests (particularly those that are non-financial in nature). The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy includes disclosures for immediate family members, a clear non-financial conflicts of interest definition, long look-back period and application of the policy to prospective members. Conflicts of interest is solicited from all members every 4 months, formally reviewed, adjudicated, and made publicly available. The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy is publicly available as part of the USPSTF Procedure Manual. A continuous improvement process can be applied to conflicts of interest policies to enhance public trust in members of panels, such as the USPSTF, that produce clinical guidelines and recommendations.

Impact of a Longitudinal Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Curriculum on Pediatric Residents.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of longitudinal quality/safety resident curricula is uncertain. We developed and tested our longitudinal quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) curriculum (QIPSC) to improve resident competence in QI/PS knowledge, skills, and attitudes. METHODS: Using core features of adult education theory and QI/PS methodology, we developed QIPSC that includes self-paced online modules, an interactive conference series, and mentored projects. Curriculum evaluation included knowledge and attitude assessments at 3 points in time (pre- and posttest in year 1 and end of curriculum [EOC] survey in year 3 upon completion of all curricular elements) and skill assessment at the EOC. RESULTS: Of 57 eligible residents in cohort 1, variable numbers of residents completed knowledge (n = 42, 20, and 31) and attitude (n = 11, 13, and 37) assessments in 3 points in time; 37 residents completed the EOC skills assessment. For knowledge assessments, there were significant differences between pre- and posttest and pretest and EOC scores, however, not between the posttest and EOC scores. In the EOC self-assessment, residents' attitudes and skills improved for all areas evaluated. Additional outcomes from project work included dissemination of QI projects to hospital-wide quality/safety initiatives and in peer-reviewed national conferences. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of a QIPSC must be responsive to a number of learners, faculties, and institutional needs and integrate adult learning theory and QI/PS methodology. QIPSC is an initial effort to address this need; follow-up results from subsequent learner cohorts will be necessary to measure the true impact of this curriculum: behavior change and practice improvements.

The US Preventive Services Task Force: What Is It and What Does It Do?

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body comprised of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine. The primary audience for the USPSTF's work is primary care clinicians, and many consider the Task Force's recommendations to be definitive standards for preventive services.

Overdiagnosis: how our compulsion for diagnosis may be harming children.

Overdiagnosis occurs when a true abnormality is discovered, but detection of that abnormality does not benefit the patient. It should be distinguished from misdiagnosis, in which the diagnosis is inaccurate, and it is not synonymous with overtreatment or overuse, in which excess medication or procedures are provided to patients for both correct and incorrect diagnoses. Overdiagnosis for adult conditions has gained a great deal of recognition over the last few years, led by realizations that certain screening initiatives, such as those for breast and prostate cancer, may be harming the very people they were designed to protect. In the fall of 2014, the second international Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference will be held, and the British Medical Journal will produce an overdiagnosis-themed journal issue. However, overdiagnosis in children has been less well described. This special article seeks to raise awareness of the possibility of overdiagnosis in pediatrics, suggesting that overdiagnosis may affect commonly diagnosed conditions such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, bacteremia, food allergy, hyperbilirubinemia, obstructive sleep apnea, and urinary tract infection. Through these and other examples, we discuss why overdiagnosis occurs and how it may be harming children. Additionally, we consider research and education strategies, with the goal to better elucidate pediatric overdiagnosis and mitigate its influence.

Prevention of dental caries in children from birth through age 5 years: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2004 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on prevention of dental caries in preschool-aged children. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on prevention of dental caries by primary care clinicians in children 5 years and younger, focusing on screening for caries, assessment of risk for future caries, and the effectiveness of various interventions that have possible benefits in preventing caries. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to children age 5 years and younger. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians prescribe oral fluoride supplementation starting at age 6 months for children whose water supply is deficient in fluoride. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians apply fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children starting at the age of primary tooth eruption. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening examinations for dental caries performed by primary care clinicians in children from birth to age 5 years. (I Statement).

Primary care behavioral interventions to reduce illicit drug and nonmedical pharmaceutical use in children and adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for illicit drug use. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on interventions to help adolescents who have never used drugs to remain abstinent and interventions to help adolescents who are using drugs but do not meet criteria for a substance use disorder to reduce or stop their use. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to children and adolescents younger than age 18 years who have not been diagnosed with a substance use disorder. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of primary care-based behavioral interventions to prevent or reduce illicit drug or nonmedical pharmaceutical use in children and adolescents. (I statement).

Screening for cognitive impairment in older adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2003 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for dementia. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits, harms, and sensitivity and specificity of screening instruments for cognitive impairment in older adults and the benefits and harms of commonly used treatment and management options for older adults with mild cognitive impairment or early dementia and their caregivers. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to universal screening with formal screening instruments in community-dwelling adults in the general primary care population who are older than 65 years and have no signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for cognitive impairment. (I statement).

Vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplements for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: U.S. Preventive services Task Force recommendation statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2003 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on vitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the efficacy of multivitamin or mineral supplements in the general adult population for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to healthy adults without special nutritional needs (typically aged 50 years or older). It does not apply to children, women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill or hospitalized or have a known nutritional deficiency. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of multivitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement). The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of single- or paired-nutrient supplements (except ß-carotene and vitamin E) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement). The USPSTF recommends against ß-carotene or vitamin E supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (D recommendation).

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the accuracy of screening tests for GDM, the benefits and harms of screening before and after 24 weeks of gestation, and the benefits and harms of treatment in the mother and infant. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to pregnant women who have not been previously diagnosed with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends screening for GDM in asymptomatic pregnant women after 24 weeks of gestation. (B recommendation)The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for GDM in asymptomatic pregnant women before 24 weeks of gestation. (I statement).

Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for lung cancer. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the efficacy of low-dose computed tomography, chest radiography, and sputum cytologic evaluation for lung cancer screening in asymptomatic persons who are at average or high risk for lung cancer (current or former smokers) and the benefits and harms of these screening tests and of surgical resection of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned modeling studies to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimum screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to asymptomatic adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation).