• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

基于系统评价和共识过程的综合筛选原则。

Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process.

机构信息

Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Dobrow, Sullivan, Rabeneck), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Cancer Care Ontario (Hagens, Rabeneck), Toronto, Ont.; Memorial University of Newfoundland (Chafe), St. John's, NL; Department of Medicine (Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.

出版信息

CMAJ. 2018 Apr 9;190(14):E422-E429. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.171154.

DOI:10.1503/cmaj.171154
PMID:29632037
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5893317/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

In 1968, Wilson and Jungner published 10 principles of screening that often represent the de facto starting point for screening decisions today; 50 years on, are these principles still the right ones? Our objectives were to review published work that presents principles for population-based screening decisions since Wilson and Jungner's seminal publication, and to conduct a Delphi consensus process to assess the review results.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and modified Delphi consensus process. We searched multiple databases for articles published in English in 1968 or later that were intended to guide population-based screening decisions, described development and modification of principles, and presented principles as a set or list. Identified sets were compared for basic characteristics (e.g., number, categorization), a citation analysis was conducted, and principles were iteratively synthesized and consolidated into categories to assess evolution. Participants in the consensus process assessed the level of agreement with the importance and interpretability of the consolidated screening principles.

RESULTS

We identified 41 sets and 367 unique principles. Each unique principle was coded to 12 consolidated decision principles that were further categorized as disease/condition, test/intervention or program/system principles. Program or system issues were the focus of 3 of Wilson and Jungner's 10 principles, but comprised almost half of all unique principles identified in the review. The 12 consolidated principles were assessed through 2 rounds of the consensus process, leading to specific refinements to improve their relevance and interpretability. No gaps or missing principles were identified.

INTERPRETATION

Wilson and Jungner's principles are remarkably enduring, but increasingly reflect a truncated version of contemporary thinking on screening that does not fully capture subsequent focus on program or system principles. Ultimately, this review and consensus process provides a comprehensive and iterative modernization of guidance to inform population-based screening decisions.

摘要

背景

1968 年,Wilson 和 Jungner 提出了 10 项筛检原则,这些原则通常被视为当今筛检决策的事实上的起点;如今 50 年过去了,这些原则是否仍然正确?我们的目标是回顾自 Wilson 和 Jungner 开创性出版物以来发表的有关基于人群的筛检决策的原则,并进行 Delphi 共识过程以评估审查结果。

方法

我们进行了系统评价和改良 Delphi 共识过程。我们在多个数据库中搜索了 1968 年或之后以指导基于人群的筛检决策为目的的英文发表文章,描述了原则的制定和修改,并将原则作为一组或列表呈现。比较了确定的原则集的基本特征(例如数量、分类),进行了引文分析,并对原则进行了迭代综合和整合,以评估其演变。共识过程的参与者评估了对综合筛检原则的重要性和可解释性的认同程度。

结果

我们确定了 41 组和 367 条独特的原则。每条独特的原则都被编码为 12 项综合决策原则,这些原则进一步分为疾病/状况、检验/干预或方案/系统原则。方案或系统问题是 Wilson 和 Jungner 的 10 项原则中的 3 项的重点,但在审查中确定的所有独特原则中,占近一半。这 12 项综合原则经过两轮共识过程的评估,导致对其相关性和可解释性进行了具体的改进。没有发现遗漏或缺失的原则。

解释

Wilson 和 Jungner 的原则具有很强的持久性,但越来越多地反映出当代筛检思维的一种简化版本,没有充分捕捉到后来对方案或系统原则的关注。最终,本审查和共识过程提供了对基于人群的筛检决策的全面和迭代现代化指导。

相似文献

1
Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process.基于系统评价和共识过程的综合筛选原则。
CMAJ. 2018 Apr 9;190(14):E422-E429. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.171154.
2
Can we improve on Wilson and Jungner's principles of screening for disease?我们能否改进威尔逊和荣格纳的疾病筛查原则?
CMAJ. 2018 Apr 9;190(14):E414-E415. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.180330.
3
[The origin of informed consent].[知情同意的起源]
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27.
4
Principles for Primary Care Screening in the Context of Population Health.以人群健康为背景的初级保健筛查原则。
Acad Pediatr. 2024 Jul;24(5):719-727. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2024.02.015. Epub 2024 Mar 6.
5
Optimizing patient and public involvement (PPI): Identifying its "essential" and "desirable" principles using a systematic review and modified Delphi methodology.优化患者和公众参与(PPI):使用系统评价和改良 Delphi 方法确定其“必要”和“期望”原则。
Health Expect. 2018 Feb;21(1):327-335. doi: 10.1111/hex.12618. Epub 2017 Sep 19.
6
Should we screen for frailty in primary care settings? A fresh perspective on the frailty evidence base: A narrative review.我们是否应该在初级保健环境中筛查虚弱?对虚弱证据基础的新视角:叙述性评论。
Prev Med. 2019 Feb;119:63-69. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.020. Epub 2018 Dec 27.
7
Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.定义共识:系统评价为 Delphi 研究报告推荐了方法学标准。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):401-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002.
8
Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies.行为干预试点及可行性研究的综合指南。
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2024 Apr 6;10(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s40814-024-01485-5.
9
Should we aspire to screen preschool children for conduct disorder?我们应该渴望对学龄前儿童进行品行障碍筛查吗?
Arch Dis Child. 2009 Oct;94(10):812-6. doi: 10.1136/adc.2009.158535. Epub 2009 Apr 26.
10
Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions.关于试点研究和可行性研究的专家观点:一项德尔菲研究及行为干预考量的整合
Res Sq. 2023 Dec 15:rs.3.rs-3370077. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3370077/v1.

引用本文的文献

1
Machine learning algorithms and their predictive accuracy for suicide and self-harm: Systematic review and meta-analysis.机器学习算法及其对自杀和自我伤害的预测准确性:系统评价与荟萃分析。
PLoS Med. 2025 Sep 11;22(9):e1004581. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004581. eCollection 2025 Sep.
2
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Complex Trauma and Strengths Questionnaire: psychometric evaluation.原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民复杂创伤与优势问卷:心理测量学评估
Aust J Psychol. 2024 May 23;76(1):2335917. doi: 10.1080/00049530.2024.2335917. eCollection 2024.
3
Standardization of TSH and FT4 to gestational age in early pregnancy and associations with clinical outcomes.孕早期促甲状腺激素(TSH)和游离甲状腺素(FT4)与孕周的标准化及其与临床结局的关联。
Eur Thyroid J. 2025 Jul 22;14(4). doi: 10.1530/ETJ-24-0344. Print 2025 Aug 1.
4
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety subscale (HADS-A) for detecting anxiety disorders in adults.用于检测成人焦虑症的医院焦虑抑郁量表焦虑分量表(HADS-A)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jul 2;7(7):CD015456. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015456.
5
Findings supporting neonatal screening for sickle cell disease: an observational study in Senegal.支持新生儿镰状细胞病筛查的研究结果:塞内加尔的一项观察性研究
Front Pediatr. 2025 May 29;13:1578570. doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1578570. eCollection 2025.
6
Is Screening for Heart Failure and Peripheral Artery Disease Warranted in Asymptomatic Adults With Diabetes? A Perspective on the 2025 American Diabetes Association "Standards of Care in Diabetes".对无症状糖尿病成年人进行心力衰竭和外周动脉疾病筛查是否必要?关于2025年美国糖尿病协会《糖尿病诊疗标准》的观点
Diabetes Care. 2025 Sep 1;48(9):1465-1471. doi: 10.2337/dci24-0103.
7
Outcomes in Early-Treated Guanidinoacetate Methyltransferase Deficiency: A Sibling Cohort Study.早期治疗的胍基乙酸甲基转移酶缺乏症的预后:一项同胞队列研究。
Neurol Genet. 2025 May 30;11(3):e200262. doi: 10.1212/NXG.0000000000200262. eCollection 2025 Jun.
8
Social Determinants of Health and Health Confidence: A Cross-Sectional Study.健康的社会决定因素与健康信心:一项横断面研究。
SAGE Open Nurs. 2025 May 15;11:23779608251344038. doi: 10.1177/23779608251344038. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
9
Evaluating and mapping the evidence that screening for diabetic foot disease meets the criteria for population-wide screening: a scoping review.评估和梳理糖尿病足病筛查符合全人群筛查标准的证据:一项范围综述
BMJ Public Health. 2024 Jul 3;2(1):e000561. doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000561. eCollection 2024 Jun.
10
Congenital cytomegalovirus screening in neonates born after 35 weeks gestation-is targeted screening beneficial?对妊娠35周后出生的新生儿进行先天性巨细胞病毒筛查——目标筛查有益吗?
Front Pediatr. 2025 Feb 13;13:1510612. doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1510612. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Newborn screening controversy: past, present, and future.新生儿筛查争议:过去、现在与未来。
JAMA Pediatr. 2014 Mar;168(3):199-200. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4980.
2
Controversies in lung cancer screening.肺癌筛查的争议。
J Am Coll Radiol. 2013 Dec;10(12):931-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.09.013.
3
Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough.谷歌学术替代系统文献检索:高相对召回率和精度还不够。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Oct 26;13:131. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-131.
4
A framework provided an outline toward the proper evaluation of potential screening strategies.一个框架为潜在筛选策略的正确评估提供了一个大纲。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jun;66(6):639-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.018. Epub 2013 Feb 6.
5
Screening criteria: the need to deal with new developments and ethical issues in newborn metabolic screening.筛查标准:应对新生儿代谢筛查中的新进展和伦理问题的必要性。
J Community Genet. 2013 Jan;4(1):59-67. doi: 10.1007/s12687-012-0118-9. Epub 2012 Oct 7.
6
Cancer screening and health system resilience: keys to protecting and bolstering preventive services during a financial crisis.癌症筛查与卫生系统韧性:金融危机期间保护和加强预防服务的关键。
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Sep;48(14):2212-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.060. Epub 2012 Mar 15.
7
Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: rationale for and challenges of guidance development.卫生系统循证政策指南:制定指南的理由和挑战。
PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001185. Epub 2012 Mar 6.
8
Revisiting the Wilson-Jungner criteria: how can supplemental criteria guide public health in the era of genetic screening?重新审视威尔逊-荣格准则:补充标准如何在基因筛查时代指导公共卫生?
Genet Med. 2012 Jan;14(1):129-34. doi: 10.1038/gim.0b013e31823331d0. Epub 2011 Oct 7.
9
Reconsidering the criteria for evaluating proposed screening programs: reflections from 4 current and former members of the U.S. Preventive services task force.重新考虑评估拟议筛查计划的标准:来自美国预防服务工作组的 4 名现任和前任成员的反思。
Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:20-35. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxr005. Epub 2011 Jun 10.
10
AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.《AGREE II:推进卫生保健领域的指南制定、报告与评估》
CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.090449. Epub 2010 Jul 5.