ArticleDer Internist2015
[General health checks and individual out-of-pocket health services].
Article in Der Internist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
General health checks are intended to identify risk factors or detect early signs of disease and to reduce mortality and morbidity from the disease by early interventions. Screening tests are not always beneficial; therefore, they have to be critically assessed with respect to the benefits and harms. Especially for general health checks there seems to be less awareness for potential harms than for other screening procedures because the diagnostic interventions are mostly less invasive and have low-risks of direct harms, such as ultrasonography or electrocardiography (ECG). Healthcare providers increasingly offer screening tests as individual out-of-pocket health services (Individuelle Gesundheits-Leistungen, IGeL) to patients without providing comprehensive information about the benefits and harms which would be necessary to enable informed decision-making. The article describes the current evidence and the methodological issues in the benefit assessment of general health checks in order to encourage a critical discussion on screening tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26384502What OpenQuestion holds
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 OpenQuestion graph.