Objective: A recurring question is whether evidence from systematic reviews has any impact on medical practice. We have studied this question in relation to some conclusions in seven reports, where relatively simple means to monitor trends could be used.

Results: As recommended, in the report preoperative routines the number of preoperative examinations diminished at six hospitals, during around 3,000 operations studied, a savings of SEK 130 million. After the report on moderately elevated blood pressure sales of the preferred drugs, diuretics and beta-blockers, stopped falling while calcium blockers and ACE inhibitors stopped rising. As concluded in the report, general prostate cancer screening has not been introduced, but tests as a sign of opportunistic screening have increased. Bone density measurements were not recommended for screening, and sales of equipment have declined after the report. The use of neuroleptics as unspecific calming therapy for old persons was discouraged due to the serious side effects. The frequency of patients given this medication diminished from 34% to 28% at nursing homes after 1 year. For smoking cessation, the use of nicotine substitution medications has increased, which is in line with suggestions presented in the report. For stomach pain proton pump inhibitors given for functional dyspepsia have diminished in a region of the country after special efforts to disseminate the message.

Conclusions: It appears to be possible to monitor changes in practice corresponding to selected conclusions in systematic reviews. After rather extensive disseminating efforts, some results look encouraging.

Objectives: The objectives of the study were to identify the current standards of clinical practice regarding prostate cancer screening in western Europe, Canada, and the United States, and to highlight major characteristics of current prostate cancer screening programs or patterns of practice.

Methods: We performed a semi-structured interview by means of a self-administered questionnaire sent by fax to 26 institutes pertaining to the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment.

Results: None of the countries surveyed had a formal national screening policy. Despite that, all the countries answering the questionnaire had discretionary, public-financed screening practices. Moreover, some scientific and professional organizations recommended population screening for prostate cancer, and few of the surveyed countries offered it as experimental practice within a randomized controlled trial. Survey results showed variation regarding screening policies, in particular test of choice, age cut-off points, and treatment prescribed for positive test results.

Conclusions: Despite the lack of conclusive evidence on the benefits of prostate cancer screening, the availability of simple and easy-to-administer tests has lead to an enormous variation on screening policies around the world. Practice variations also affect prostate cancer therapy.