Evidence mapPaperPMID 30699470Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.

Lasse T Krogsbøll, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 86 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04684316 nacompletednot on this map

Economic Evaluation of an Online Screening Tool With Selective Follow-up Versus Periodic Health Screening by the Occupational Physician

TypeinterventionalSponsorKU LeuvenRan2019 to 2020Enrolled889ConditionsOccupational Health, Screening, Surveys and QuestionnairesArmsElectronic survey with selective consultations
NCT07136168 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Healthy Ageing - an Interdisciplinary Randomised Study of Health Dialogues in Primary Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorLinkoeping UniversityRan2025 to 2031Enrolled2,952ConditionsFrailty, Ageing Well, Prevention Intervention, Health Related Quality of LifeArmsHealth dialogue
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lasse T KrogsbøllNordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 7811, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2100.
Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Peter C Gøtzsche

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012.

objectivesTo quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis. MAIN

resultsWe included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I AUTHORS'

conclusionsGeneral health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Indexed as

DiagnosisPrimary PreventionAdultCause of DeathDiseaseHealth PromotionHumansMorbidityRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30699470
PMCPMC6353639

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.