Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23169868›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lasse T Krogsbøll, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Christian Grønhøj Larsen, Peter C Gøtzsche

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

135 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Screening for increased cardiometabolic risk in primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Pooled it
  8. Effectiveness of general practice-based health checks: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Enhanced Invitations Using the Question-Behavior Effect and Financial Incentives to Promote Health Check Uptake in Primary Care.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2018
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Underdiagnosis of Health: A Key Driver of Overdiagnosis of Disease.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026
    Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lasse T KrogsbøllNordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. ltk@cochrane.dk
Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Christian Grønhøj Larsen
Peter C Gøtzsche

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks in adults with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes.

designCochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. For mortality, we analysed the results with random effects meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Healthstar, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EPOC register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of included studies, citation tracking (Web of Knowledge), and contacts with trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adult populations unselected for disease or risk factors. Health checks defined as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. We did not include geriatric trials. DATA EXTRACTION: Two observers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary.

resultsWe identified 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182,880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (11,940 deaths), and they gave a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (0.91 to 1.17), and eight on cancer mortality (3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings. We did not find beneficial effects of general health checks on morbidity, hospitalisation, disability, worry, additional physician visits, or absence from work, but not all trials reported on these outcomes. One trial found that health checks led to a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared with the control group and an increased number of people with self reported chronic conditions, and one trial found an increased prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia. Two out of four trials found an increased use of antihypertensives. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self reported health, which could be due to bias.

conclusionsGeneral health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although they increased the number of new diagnoses. Important harmful outcomes were often not studied or reported. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Cochrane Library, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009009.

Indexed as

DiagnosisPrimary PreventionAdultDiseaseHumansMorbidityMortality

Identifiers

PMID23169868
PMCPMC3502745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.