ArticlePLoS medicine2019
Health checks and cardiovascular risk factor values over six years' follow-up: Matched cohort study using electronic health records in England.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of general health checks in adults: A systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Strategies to improve the implementation of preventive care in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Implementation strategies to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies.BMC primary care · 2023Pooled it
- Visualising health risks with medical imaging for changing recipients' health behaviours and risk factors: Systematic review with meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions.BMC public health · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluating the effectiveness of the cardiovascular assessment screening program with nurse practitioners and patients: results of a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC primary care · 2024Trial
- Effectiveness of the population-based 'check your health preventive programme' conducted in a primary care setting: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2022Trial
- Ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in stroke risk factors and primary prevention: the South London Stroke Register cohort study 1995-2024.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Biomarkers of aging: from molecules and surrogates to physiology and function.Physiological reviews · 2025Review
- What People Want: Exercise and Personalized Intervention as Preferred Strategies to Improve Well-Being and Prevent Chronic Diseases.Nutrients · 2025Observational
- Primary care health screening in patients with severe mental illness: What influence do financial incentives have?PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Article
- The effectiveness of interventions used to improve general health check uptake by the older adult population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- The association of female reproductive factors with history of cardiovascular disease: a large cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- NHS Health Check attendance is associated with reduced multiorgan disease risk: a matched cohort study in the UK Biobank.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Factors associated with the use of annual health checkups in Thailand: evidence from a national cross-sectional health and welfare survey.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Characteristics and health-status outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation detected via health screening.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
- Modified Haller index validation and correlation with left ventricular strain in a cohort of subjects with obesity and without overt heart disease.Internal and emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Prediction Model for Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus Using Korean Public Health Examination Data (2002-2017).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Health Service (NHS) in England introduced a population-wide programme for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in 2009, known as NHS Health Checks. This research aimed to measure the cardiovascular risk management and cardiovascular risk factor outcomes of the health check programme during six years' follow-up. METHODS AND
findingsA controlled interrupted time series study was conducted. Participants were registered with general practices in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England and received health checks between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2013. Control participants, who did not receive a health check, were matched for age, sex, and general practice. Outcomes were blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL). Analyses estimated the net effect of health check by year, allowing for the underlying trend in risk factor values and baseline differences between cases and controls, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, and clustering by general practice. There were 127,891 health check participants and 322,910 matched controls. Compared with controls, health check participants had lower BMI (cases mean 27.0, SD 4.8; controls 27.3, SD 5.6, Kg/m2), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (cases 129.0, SD 14.3; controls 129.3, SD 15.0, mm Hg), and smoking (21% in health check participants versus 27% in controls), but total and HDL cholesterol were similar. Health check participants were more likely to receive weight management advice (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 5.03, 4.98 to 5.08, P < 0.001), smoking cessation interventions (HR 3.20, 3.13 to 3.27, P < 0.001), or statins (HR 1.24, 1.21 to 1.27, P < 0.001). There were net reductions in risk factor values up to six years after the check for BMI (-0.30, -0.39 to -0.20 Kg/m2, P < 0.001), SBP (-1.43, -1.70 to -1.16 mm Hg, P < 0.001), and smoking (17% in health check participants versus 25% in controls; odds ratio 0.90, 0.87 to 0.94, P < 0.001). The main study limitation was that residual confounding may be present because randomisation was not employed; health check-associated measurement introduced differential recording that might cause bias.
conclusionsOur results suggest that people who take up a health check generally have lower risk factor values than controls and are more likely to receive risk factor interventions. Risk factor values show net reductions up to six years following a health check in BMI, blood pressure, and smoking, which may be of public health importance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.