Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41613706›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

A Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Health Screening in Michigan: Are We Doing Enough?

Shadan Alrawi, Andreanna C Ulery, Manasvi Patel, Shafi Mohamed

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shadan AlrawiCollege of Literature, Science, and the Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Andreanna C UleryCollege of Literature, Science, and the Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Manasvi PatelCollege of Literature, Science, and the Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Shafi MohamedCardiothoracic Surgery, Memorial Healthcare, Lufkin, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States, with persistent disparities in access to preventive screening. This systematic review investigates how racial, geographic, and socioeconomic factors influence cardiovascular screening rates across Michigan, focusing on blood pressure and cholesterol screening across various groups. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted for studies published through October 2025. Eligible studies reported Michigan-specific data on preventive cardiovascular screening, operationally defined as blood pressure measurement, and/or lipid testing in adults. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, and methodological quality was assessed using study-design-appropriate appraisal tools, including the NIH quality assessment instrument. Across studies, Black, rural, uninsured, and low-income populations consistently demonstrated lower screening rates compared with White, urban, and insured groups. Reported disparities in screening ranged from approximately 5%-15% points across racial and socioeconomic strata, depending on population and data source. Policy and community-based interventions, including Medicaid expansion and mobile screening initiatives, were associated with modest increases in screening, although effects were variable and not uniformly sustained. Overall, preventive cardiovascular screening in Michigan remains unevenly distributed, highlighting persistent equity gaps and the need for more consistent, statewide screening strategies.

Indexed as

access to healthcareawareness of cardiovascular diseasescardio vascular diseasecardiovascular preventionpreventive screeningrural michigan

Identifiers

PMID41613706
PMCPMC12850540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.