ArticleBMC primary care2026
Effectiveness of check-up 35 for detecting targeted diseases in Germany.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Check-up 35 has been a key element of primary prevention in German general practice since 1989. However, evidence on its effectiveness in detecting target diseases remains limited. Therefore, we analyzed the detection rates of the target diseases of the Check-up 35 in a large cohort of persons treated in German primary care.
methodsIn a retrospective cohort study using data from 1,216 German primary care practices (IQVIA™ Disease Analyzer, 2019–2023), we compared Check-up 35 participants with non-participants via 1:5 propensity score matching. We analyzed diagnoses of arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) within three months post-check-up versus a random visit in controls. Medication prescriptions following diagnosis served as a secondary outcome.
resultsWe compared 51,829 participants with 259,145 matched non-participants. Participation was associated with higher diagnosis rates: hypertension (HR 1.56), diabetes (HR 1.69), dyslipidemia (HR 3.24), and CKD (HR 2.07). The effect was especially pronounced for dyslipidemia in individuals under 40 (HR 5.10). Prescription rates after diagnosis were similar or lower in the Check-up group.
conclusionCheck-up 35 is effective in early detection of key chronic diseases. Broader participation should be encouraged to improve prevention.
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.