Key result
Systematic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease had no significant effect on all-cause mortality compared to opportunistic assessment (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.92-1.02).
Why the study?
Does systematic risk assessment reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared to opportunistic risk assessment in healthy adults?
Population
Healthy adults from the general population, including those at risk of CVD (9 RCTs included)
Comparison
Systematic risk assessment vs Opportunistic risk assessment
Design
Systematic_review
Follow-up
1 to 10 years
Authors
Loading...
No mortality benefit with systematic versus opportunistic assessment; challenges broad implementation for primary CVD prevention.
Systematic Review
Does systematic risk assessment reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared to opportunistic risk assessment in healthy adults?
Effect estimate: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.02)
Systematic risk assessment for primary prevention of CVD does not significantly reduce clinical endpoints compared to opportunistic assessment, despite minor improvements in risk factors.
Dyakova et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review in Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Systematic risk assessment vs. Opportunistic risk assessment was evaluated on All-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02). Systematic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease had no significant effect on all-cause mortality compared to opportunistic assessment (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.92-1.02).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: