Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 45A)

192 Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Appendices KCE reports vol.45
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (UPSTF)
the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC)
I. Quality of evidence rating according to 5 levels):
II. Grades of Recommendation:
I - Evidence from at least 1 properly randomized controlled trial
(RCT).
II-1 - Evidence from well-designed controlled trials without
randomization.
II-2 - Evidence from well-designed cohort or case-control
analytic studies, preferably from more than 1 centre or research
group.
II-3 - Evidence from comparisons between times or places with
or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled
experiments could also be included here.
III - Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical
experience, descriptive studies or reports of expert committees.
A: The USPSTF strongly recommends that clinicians routinely
provide the clinical preventive action to eligible patients. (The
USPSTF found good evidence that the clinical preventive action
improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits
substantially outweigh harms.)
B: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians routinely provide the
clinical preventive action to eligible patients. (The USPSTF found
at least fair evidence that the clinical preventive action improves
important health outcomes and concludes that benefits outweigh
harms.)
C: The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against
routine provision of the clinical preventive action. (The USPSTF
found at least fair evidence that the clinical preventive action can
improve health outcomes but concludes that the balance of
benefits and harms is too close to justify a general
recommendation.)
D: The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing the
clinical preventive action to asymptomatic patients. (The USPSTF
found at least fair evidence that the clinical preventive action is
ineffective or that harms outweigh benefits.)
I: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to
recommend for or against routinely providing the clinical
preventive action. (Evidence that the clinical preventive action is
effective is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting and the balance
of benefits and harms cannot be determined.)
Institute of Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI - USA)
Evidence is classed and graded as described below.