ReviewThe European journal of general practice2026
Discrepancies in low-value practices across cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. A narrative review.
Review in The European journal of general practice, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-value practices are interventions that do not provide health benefits due to lack of effectiveness or associated risks that outweigh the potential benefits.
objectivesThe purpose of this study is to demonstrate discrepancies across various cardiovascular prevention guidelines published by numerous institutions and organisations, and establish an objective overview of the current state of the art and formulate recommendations for general practitioners.
methodsA narrative review of clinical practice guidelines for CVD prevention published in English between January 2017 and December 2025 was conducted. Searches focused on major European, British, North American, and Australian scientific societies; only guidelines containing explicit recommendations on low-value or unnecessary practices were included. We identified the scientific evidence supporting these recommendations and searched for ongoing clinical trials - specifically in cases where recommendations were based on a single randomised trial, large non-randomised studies, retrospective data, or expert opinion.
resultsGuidelines show significant discrepancies regarding recommendations for low-value practices. These primarily relate to the evaluation of the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, determination of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and the initiation of lipid-lowering treatment in older adults. Controversy and uncertainty were most evident when recommendations were based on non-randomised clinical trials or expert opinion.
conclusionsWhile some guidelines align, others exhibit clear discrepancies, illustrating the uncertainty of the scientific evidence and differing interpretations. Until robust evidence from high-quality clinical trials becomes available, clinicians should exercise caution regarding certain screening procedures and therapeutic interventions in CVD prevention within general practice.
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.