Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

8 questions · 9 findings · 2 reviews · Heart · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 22.2%Low 5 · 55.6%Moderate 2 · 22.2%High 0 · 0%

Screening vs routine practice

Number of new diagnoses · vulnerable population: senior 65 years of age or older

Screening probably leads to higher number of new diagnoses: systematic screening vs routine practice compared with routine practice (moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Systematic screening for the detection of atrial fibrillation 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.57 [1.08, 2.26]
1 study · 9075 participants
Moderate
Systematic screening for the detection of atrial fibrillation 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.58 [1.1, 2.29]
1 study · 9088 participants
Moderate

Systematic screening vs opportunistic screening

Number of new diagnoses · vulnerable population: senior 65 years of age or older

Systematic screening showed no clear difference in number of new diagnoses compared with opportunistic screening (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systematic screening for the detection of atrial fibrillation 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.99 [0.72, 1.37]
1 study · 9137 participants
Low

Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening

All‐cause mortality · general population including those at moderate to high risk of CVD, mean age between 30 and 75

Systematic screening showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality compared with no/opportunistic screening (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.98 [0.93, 1.03]
3 studies · 103571 participants
Low

Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening

Stroke · 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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening

Total coronary heart disease · general population including those at moderate to high risk of CVD, mean age between 30 and 75

Systematic screening showed no clear difference in coronary heart disease (total) compared with no/opportunistic screening (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.01 [0.95, 1.07]
4 studies · 110168 participants
Low

Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening

Cholesterol mg/dL · general population including those at moderate to high risk of CVD, mean age between 30 and 75

1 finding from 1 review

Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
6 studies · 12591 participants
Very low

Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening

Systolic blood pressure · general population including those at moderate to high risk of CVD, mean age between 30 and 75

1 finding from 1 review

Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
6 studies · 12591 participants
Very low

Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening

Diastolic blood pressure · general population including those at moderate to high risk of CVD, mean age between 30 and 75

1 finding from 1 review

Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
6 studies · 12591 participants
Low