Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where George Isham is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by George Isham.


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2008

Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Allen J. Dietrich; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Roseanne M. Leipzig; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for colorectal cancer. METHODS To update its recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review on 4 selected questions relating to test characteristics and benefits and harms of screening technologies, and 2) a decision analytic modeling analysis using population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of available screening modalities when used in a programmatic way over time. RECOMMENDATIONS The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefits of these screening methods vary. (A recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer in adults 76 to 85 years of age. There may be considerations that support colorectal cancer screening in an individual patient. (C recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against screening for colorectal cancer in adults older than age 85 years. (D recommendation). The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer. (I statement).


American Journal of Preventive Medicine | 2002

The effectiveness of disease and case management for people with diabetes: A systematic review

Susan L. Norris; Phyllis Nichols; Carl J. Caspersen; Russell E. Glasgow; Michael M. Engelgau; Leonard Jack; George Isham; Susan Snyder; Vilma G Carande-Kulis; Sanford Garfield; Peter A. Briss; David K. McCulloch

This report presents the results of a systematic review of the effectiveness and economic efficiency of disease management and case management for people with diabetes and forms the basis for recommendations by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services on the use of these two interventions. Evidence supports the effectiveness of disease management on glycemic control; on screening for diabetic retinopathy, foot lesions and peripheral neuropathy, and proteinuria; and on the monitoring of lipid concentrations. This evidence is applicable to adults with diabetes in managed care organizations and community clinics in the United States and Europe. Case management is effective in improving both glycemic control and provider monitoring of glycemic control. This evidence is applicable primarily in the U.S. managed care setting for adults with type 2 diabetes. Case management is effective both when delivered in conjunction with disease management and when delivered with one or more additional educational, reminder, or support interventions.


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2009

Aspirin for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Leon Gordis; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Albert L. Siu; Steven M. Teutsch; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about the use of aspirin for the prevention of coronary heart disease. METHODS Review of the literature since 2002, focusing on new evidence on the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and stroke. The new evidence was reviewed and synthesized according to sex. RECOMMENDATIONS Encourage men age 45 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in myocardial infarctions outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Encourage women age 55 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in ischemic strokes outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention in men and women 80 years or older. (I statement) Do not encourage aspirin use for cardiovascular disease prevention in women younger than 55 years and in men younger than 45 years. (D recommendation).


American Journal of Preventive Medicine | 2002

Increasing diabetes self-management education in community settings: A systematic review.

Susan L. Norris; Phyllis Nichols; Carl J. Caspersen; Russell E. Glasgow; Michael M. Engelgau; Leonard Jack; Susan Snyder; Vilma G Carande-Kulis; George Isham; Sanford Garfield; Peter A. Briss; David K. McCulloch

This report presents the results of a systematic review of the effectiveness and economic efficiency of self-management education interventions for people with diabetes and forms the basis for recommendations by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Data on glycemic control provide sufficient evidence that self-management education is effective in community gathering places for adults with type 2 diabetes and in the home for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Evidence is insufficient to assess the effectiveness of self-management education interventions at the worksite or in summer camps for either type 1 or type 2 diabetes or in the home for type 2 diabetes. Evidence is also insufficient to assess the effectiveness of educating coworkers and school personnel about diabetes.


Pediatrics | 2009

Screening and Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Mary B. Barton; Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitt; Thomas G. DeWitt; Allen J. Dietrich; Leon Gordis; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Rosanne M. Leipzig; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION. This is an update of the 2002 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on screening for child and adolescent major depressive disorder. METHODS. The US Preventive Services Task Force weighed the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents, incorporating new evidence addressing gaps in the 2002 recommendation statement. Evidence examined included the benefits and harms of screening, the accuracy of primary care–feasible screening tests, and the benefits and risks of treating depression by using psychotherapy and/or medications in patients aged 7 to 18 years. RECOMMENDATIONS. Screen adolescents (12–18 years of age) for major depressive disorder when systems are in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral or interpersonal), and follow-up (B recommendation). Evidence is insufficient to warrant a recommendation to screen children (7–11 years of age) for major depressive disorder (I statement).


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2009

Using nontraditional risk factors in coronary heart disease risk assessment: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Albert L. Siu; Steven M. Teutsch; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION New recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of nontraditional, or novel, risk factors in assessing the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of asymptomatic persons. METHODS Systematic reviews were conducted of literature since 1996 on 9 proposed nontraditional markers of CHD risk: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, ankle-brachial index, leukocyte count, fasting blood glucose, periodontal disease, carotid intima-media thickness, coronary artery calcification score on electron-beam computed tomography, homocysteine, and lipoprotein(a). The reviews followed a hierarchical approach aimed at determining which factors could practically and definitively reassign persons assessed as intermediate-risk according to their Framingham score to either a high-risk or low-risk strata, and thereby improve outcomes by means of aggressive risk-factor modification in those newly assigned to the high-risk stratum. RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of using the nontraditional risk factors studied to screen asymptomatic men and women with no history of CHD to prevent CHD events. (I statement).


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2008

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Allen J. Dietrich; Leon Gordis; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Rosanne M. Leipzig; Michael L. LeFevre; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION Updated U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. METHODS To estimate the balance of benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF updated its 2003 evidence review, adding evidence from new trials as well as updates on earlier studies. The review for this current recommendation focused on evidence that early treatment prevented long-term adverse outcomes of diabetes, including cardiovascular events, visual impairment, renal failure, and amputation. RECOMMENDATIONS Screen for type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic adults with sustained blood pressure (either treated or untreated) greater than 135/80 mm Hg. (B recommendation) Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening in asymptomatic adults with blood pressure of 135/80 mm Hg or lower. (I statement).


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2008

Screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using spirometry: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Leon Gordis; Allen J. Dietrich; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Roseanne M. Leipzig; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION New U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using spirometry. METHODS The USPSTF weighed the benefits (prevention of > or =1 exacerbation and improvement in respiratory-related health status measures) and harms (time and effort required by both patients and the health care system, false-positive screening tests, and adverse effects of subsequent unnecessary therapy) of COPD screening identified in the accompanying review of the evidence. The USPSTF did not consider the financial costs of spirometry testing or COPD therapies. RECOMMENDATION Do not screen adults for COPD using spirometry. (Grade D recommendation).


Annals of Internal Medicine | 2007

Screening for high blood pressure: U.S. preventive services task force reaffirmation recommendation statement

Ned Calonge; Diana B. Petitti; Thomas G. DeWitt; Leon Gordis; Kimberly D. Gregory; Russell Harris; George Isham; Michael L. LeFevre; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Lucy N. Marion; Virginia A. Moyer; Judith K. Ockene; George F. Sawaya; Albert L. Siu; Steven M. Teutsch; Barbara P. Yawn

DESCRIPTION Reaffirmation of the 2003 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force statement about screening for high blood pressure. METHODS The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force did a targeted literature search for evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure. RECOMMENDATION Screen for high blood pressure in adults age 18 years or older. (Grade A recommendation).


American Journal of Preventive Medicine | 2000

Scope and organization of the guide to community preventive services

Stephanie Zaza; Robert S. Lawrence; Charles S. Mahan; Mindy Thompson Fullilove; David W. Fleming; George Isham; Marguerite Pappaioanou

BACKGROUND The diverse nature of the target audience (i.e., public health decision-makers) for the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide) dictates that it must be broad in scope. In addition, for the Guide to be most useful for its target audience, its organization and format must be carefully considered. DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE GUIDE Healthy People objectives and actual causes of death were used to determine the contents of the Guide. A priority setting exercise resulted in the selection of 15 topics for systematic reviews using the following criteria: burden of the problem, preventability, relationship to other public health initiatives, usefulness of the package of topics selected and level of current research and intervention activity in public and private sectors. Interventions within each topic target state and local levels and include population-based strategies, individual strategies in other than clinical settings and group strategies. ORGANIZATION OF THE GUIDE The Guide is organized into: Introduction, Reviews and Recommendations (three sections: Changing Risk Behaviors, Reducing Diseases, Injuries, or Impairments, and Addressing Environmental and Ecosystem Challenges), Appendixes, and Indexes. DISCUSSION The scope and organization of the Guide were determined using relevant public health criteria and expert opinion to provide a useful and accessible document to a broad target audience. While the final contents of the Guide may change during development, the working table of contents described in this paper provides a framework for development of the Guide and conveys its scope and intention.

Collaboration


Dive into the George Isham's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Lucy N. Marion

Georgia Regents University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ned Calonge

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Thomas G. DeWitt

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Judith K. Ockene

University of Massachusetts Medical School

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Virginia A. Moyer

Baylor College of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge