ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2024
Will DANCAVAS be the most important screening trial in the last 50 years?
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Progress in risk assessment and management: Forecasting updates across international cholesterol guidelines.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening trials for cardiovascular disease have not demonstrated a reduction in all-cause mortality. The Danish Cardiovascular Screening trial (DANCAVAS) involved men aged 65-74 years old who were randomized to an invitation to undergo screening or not. While the 5-year interim analysis did not show a statistically significant benefit in the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, HR 0.95 (CI 0.90-1.00), a sub-group analysis of men age 65-69 did show a lower hazard ratio of 0.89 (CI 0.83-0.96). Given the widening difference between screened and un-screened participants, as well as the benefit in younger subjects, it is likely that the next analysis will demonstrate a statistically-significant benefit of screening. In this commentary we argue why this trial will almost certainly become one of the most influential screening trials and why heeding its most important lesson, the use of coronary artery calcium scoring, has the potential to save countless lives.
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.