Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening: Stroke
Systematic screening showed no clear difference in stroke (total) compared with no/opportunistic screening (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening Stroke (total) · general population including those at moderate to high risk of CVD, mean age between 30 and 75 Systematic screening showed no clear difference in stroke (total) compared with no/opportunistic screening (low certainty). Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.99 [0.9, 1.1] | 2 studies · 79631 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.