Why Screening Should Be Recommended

There are some limitations to this literature review. One limitation is some of these studies may be outdated being that they are from the 1990s (i.e: Dulit et. al, 1990; Miller et. al, 1993; and Dougherty et. al, 1999). Another limitation is some of the studies were not randomized samples (i.e: Miller et. al, 1993 and Tragesser et. al, 2013). If samples are not random this could mean the results are bias.

However, the initial blood test should not be made mandatory under our current healthcare system because of the “$84.50 fee for screening”.4 Mandating a charge like this places a further burden on the disadvantaged, preventing a small but still considerable portion of the population from accessing the treatment. Consequently, mandatory screening should be ethically required in the sense that as it would be unethical to not give every infant an equal opportunity to health, but cannot be, as the cost for the treatment would make the program a potential burden.

Both clinicians who are enquiring clinical questions and researchers who are conducting in-depth searches for systematic reviews come across a few

A meta-analysis of seven different studies, an experimental study, a quasi-experimental study, and two non-experimental studies were used in this research process. The meta-analysis provided level one strength evidence and was of good quality for scientific evidence. The experimental study presented level one strength evidence and was also of good quality for scientific evidence. The quasi-experimental study had level two strength evidence and provided high-quality scientific evidence. Both of the non-experimental studies provided level three strength evidence and high-quality scientific evidence.

Based off of the nine articles selected, this SRR is considered a level II study. Each was a randomized control trial (RCTs) and indicates strong and well-designed studies. A systematic review of randomized RCTs are at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, are level one, and are considered the most rigorous (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). Candidates were healthy

As a result, there were 73% of the referenced articles included in the literature review published within ten years. There was a systematic meta-review and several other independent studies included. There were twelve articles referenced that had greater than ten years noted. However, many of these articles were the original research.

The first section in the methods section describes the protocol to be followed. In order to find appropriate studies for the meta-analysis, Taylor and Swerdfeger, examined articles from Medline, Pubmed, Embase, and Google Scholar using the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Analysis (PRISMA) and independently assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Eslick then reviewed the articles. Following this, Taylor manually extracted the study design, the country of completion, sample sizes, interventions, outcome measures, and measures of effect from the articles. All literature had to be published and there was no language restriction on the studies,

Higgins & Green in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions described systematic review as a summary result of “available carefully designed healthcare studies (controlled trials) and provides a high level of evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Judgments may be made about the evidence and inform recommendations for healthcare” (Higgins & Green, 2011). Systematic review is now replacing traditional narrative reviews as a way of summarizing research evidence. As Ralf W. Schlosser noted systematic reviews is replacing traditional narrative reviews because it “aim to minimize bias in locating, selecting, coding, and aggregating individual studies. This rigor in minimizing bias is what makes these reviews

Cullen and Gendreau compare and contrast the many studies on this subject, the meta-analyses conclusions, their strengths, weaknesses, inconsistencies, and the trends that follow the studies

54 year-old male with family history of heart disease before 55 years of age, never smoked, drinks 1 drink daily, moderate exercise 5 days per week, no significant personal medical history.

Abstracts were perused to ascertain relevance prior to reading of the full-text article. Scrutiny of the full-text articles was performed to determine their appropriateness and adherence to inclusion criteria of the review. Assessment of methodological quality of the studies that met the inclusion criteria was performed. Studies of poor quality were excluded (Hemmingway & Brereton, 2009). Extraction of information from the articles that met the inclusion criteria related to the research question was performed. In cases where results were reported by the same research, in more than one publication, review of the articles was performed in combination to extract the desired information. Extraction of the following data was performed that included country in which research was conducted; aim/objective of the research; type of study, study population; process of data collection; results; and information related to reliability and

This specific article was chosen because it was a systematic review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This source is the best available evidence, and the fact that it is within the last 5 years and pertained to the specific question asked was also valuable in its selection.

I found the information by investigating website with journals, just sites that have studies and investigated thoroughly about the subject. I was primarily interested in how the studies went down, than

Early detection is the best way to prevent damage or death from any illness. Everybody believes that a deadly illness won’t happen to them or to somebody that they dearly love. However, it isn't always true in reality. According to www.thomlatimercares.org 1500 people die everyday just in the United States due to cancer. Even with that we must have hope, so many peoples’ lives could be saved from cancer or other diseases just by screenings and being healthy. Many people, my age especially don't know the importance of screenings. Six months ago my cousin passed away from colon cancer, he was only 28 years old at the time and I knew him all my life. We later found out he hadn't been to the doctor in over five years and often smoked and drank. It made no difference, by the time he was screened by his doctor it was too late.

In agreement with a systematic review study conducted by Maia et al17 that included 14 studies, at which, 12 studies