Table 2.

Shared and Specific Features of USPSTF and CPSTF Processes

Elements of review and recommendation process	Shared features	USPSTF features	CPSTF features
Define intervention and hypothesized mechanism	Develop analytic framework (AF) to guide review process	Interventions either universal or targeted to selected group, based on risk factors Focus on clearly specifying key questions	Interventions often targeted to entire target population Focus on clearly identifying hypothesized causal mechanisms
Identify inclusion/exclusion criteria for systematic review of studies	Clearly defined, objective criteria	Evidence base for effectiveness questions often limited to RCTs	Generally includes both RCTs and quasi-experimental study designs
Synthesize results of multiple studies	Dual abstraction to improve reliability	Pooling via meta-analysis when appropriate and possible	Pooling often done via descriptive summary statistics
Address applicability of findings to stakeholders	Critical applicability questions carefully considered	Focus on U.S. primary care populations and clinically relevant intervention contexts	Addresses broad range of intervention contexts
Summarize benefits and harms	Identify all outcomes that may be important for assessment of net benefit	USPSTF and CPSTF features are similar	USPSTF and CPSTF features are similar
Identify and summarize evidence gaps	Identification of evidence gaps is important for both task forces	USPSTF and CPSTF features are similar	USPSTF and CPSTF features are similar
Develop recommendation	Consensus process based on transparent criteria	Letter grades (A, B, C, D, I) reflect combination of (1) magnitude of net benefit and (2) certainty of estimated net benefit	Findings reflect level of confidence that intervention has a meaningful net benefit

CPSTF, Community Preventive Services Task Force; USPSTF, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.