M

Michael Pignone

Duke University

ORCID: 0000-0002-6657-7342

Publishes on Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection, Global Cancer Incidence and Screening, Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life. 546 papers and 34.2k citations.

546Publications
34.2kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Screening for Colorectal Cancer
Cited by 2.5k

IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 134,000 persons will be diagnosed with the disease, and about 49,000 will die from it. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among adults aged 65 to 74 years; the median age at death from colorectal cancer is 68 years. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test, the multitargeted stool DNA test, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA test in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristics of these tests for detecting adenomatous polyps, advanced adenomas based on size, or both, as well as colorectal cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a comparative modeling study to provide information on optimal starting and stopping ages and screening intervals across the different available screening methods. FINDINGS: The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk, asymptomatic adults aged 50 to 75 years is of substantial net benefit. Multiple screening strategies are available to choose from, with different levels of evidence to support their effectiveness, as well as unique advantages and limitations, although there are no empirical data to demonstrate that any of the reviewed strategies provide a greater net benefit. Screening for colorectal cancer is a substantially underused preventive health strategy in the United States. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer starting at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years (A recommendation). The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient's overall health and prior screening history (C recommendation).

Screening for Depression in Adults
Cited by 1.4k

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for depression in adults. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression in adult populations, including older adults and pregnant and postpartum women; the accuracy of depression screening instruments; and the benefits and harms of depression treatment in these populations. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults 18 years and older. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women. Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up. (B recommendation).

Screening for Depression in Adults: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Michael Pignone, Bradley N. Gaynes, Jerry L. Rushton et al.|Annals of Internal Medicine|2002
Cited by 1.1k

BACKGROUND: Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death and the seventh leading cause of years of potential life lost in the United States. Although suicide is of great public health significance, its clinical management is complicated. PURPOSE: The authors systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether screening for suicide risk in primary care settings decreases morbidity, mortality, or both. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to 17 October 2002), PsycINFO, Cochrane databases, hand-searched bibliographies, and experts. STUDY SELECTION: For screening, only English-language studies performed in primary care settings were examined. For treatment, randomized, controlled trials and cohort studies were included if they were performed in any setting where suicide completions, suicide attempts, or suicidal ideation were reported. DATA EXTRACTION: A primary reviewer abstracted data on key variables of study sample, design, and outcomes; a second reviewer checked information accuracy against the original articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: No study directly addressed whether screening for suicide in primary care reduces morbidity and mortality. The remainder of the review focused on the questions of reliable screening tests for suicide risk and the effectiveness of interventions to decrease depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts or completion. One screening study provided limited evidence for the accuracy of suicide screening in a primary care setting. Intervention studies provided fair and mixed evidence that treating those at risk for suicide reduces the number of suicide attempts or completions. The evidence suggests mild to moderate improvement for interventions addressing intermediate outcomes such as suicidal ideation, decreased depressive severity, decreased hopelessness, or improved level of function. CONCLUSION: Because of the complexity of studying the risk for suicide and the paucity of well-designed research studies, only limited evidence guides the primary care clinician's assessment and management of suicide risk.

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in People With Diabetes Mellitus
John B. Buse, Henry N. Ginsberg, George L. Bakris et al.|Diabetes Care|2006
Cited by 1.1kOpen Access

The American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) have each published guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention: the ADA has issued separate recommendations for each of the cardiovascular risk factors in patients with diabetes, and the AHA has shaped primary and secondary guidelines that extend to patients with diabetes. This statement will attempt to harmonize the recommendations of both organizations where possible but will recognize areas in which AHA and ADA recommendations differ.