Cochrane · systematic review · CD010411
Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Dyakova, M, Shantikumar, S, Colquitt, JL, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
HeartAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
6
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 33.3%Low 4 · 66.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Systematic screening compared to no/opportunistic screening for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Population: general population including those at moderate to high risk of CVD, mean age between 30 and 75
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening | RR 0.98 [0.93, 1.03] | 3 studies · 103571 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Stroke (total) Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening | RR 0.99 [0.9, 1.1] | 2 studies · 79631 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Coronary heart disease (total) Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening | RR 1.01 [0.95, 1.07] | 4 studies · 110168 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Total cholesterol, mmol/l Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 12591 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Systolic blood pressure, mmHg Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 12591 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg Systematic screening vs no/opportunistic screening | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 12591 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |