General health checks vs usual care: Fatal and non‐fatal ischaemic heart disease
General health checks showed no clear difference in fatal and non‐fatal ischaemic heart disease compared with usual care (high certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
General health checks vs usual care Fatal and non‐fatal ischaemic heart disease · general adult populations (geriatric trials not included) General health checks showed no clear difference in fatal and non‐fatal ischaemic heart disease compared with usual care (high certainty). General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.98 [0.94, 1.03] | 4 studies · 164881 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease 2019 · 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.