Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995
Health checks and coronary risk: further evidence from a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 7 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2024Pooled it
- Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Impact of provision of cardiovascular disease risk estimates to healthcare professionals and patients: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2015Pooled it
- Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions.American journal of preventive medicine · 2009Pooled it
- Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006Pooled it
- Dietary advice given by a dietitian versus other health professional or self-help resources to reduce blood cholesterol.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001Pooled it
- Implementing Health Policy: Lessons from the Scottish Well Men's Policy Initiative.AIMS public health · 2015Article
- Using body mass index data in the electronic health record to calculate cardiovascular risk.American journal of preventive medicine · 2012Article
- Intensive cardiovascular risk factor intervention in a rural practice: a glimmer of hope?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998Article
- Health checks and coronary risk. Effect of health checks was underplayed.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a health check and assess any particular benefits resulting from feedback of plasma cholesterol concentration or coronary risk score, or both.
designRandomised controlled trial in two Glasgow work sites. SUBJECTS: 1,632 employees (89% male) aged 20 to 65 years.
interventionsAt the larger work site, (a) health education; (b) health education and feedback on cholesterol concentration; (c) health education and feedback on risk score; (d) health education with feedback on cholesterol concentration and risk score (full health check); (e) no health intervention (internal control). At the other work site there was no health intervention (external control).
main outcome measuresChanges in Dundee risk score, plasma cholesterol concentration, diastolic blood pressure, body mass index and self-reported behaviours (smoking, exercise, alcohol intake, and diet) in comparison with internal and external control groups.
resultsComparisons between the full health check and the internal control groups showed a small difference (0.13 mmol/l) in the change in mean cholesterol concentration (95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.22, P = 0.02) but no significant differences for changes in Dundee risk score (P = 0.21), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.71), body mass index (P = 0.16), smoking (P = 1.00) or exercise (P = 0.41). Significant differences between the two groups were detected for changes in self-reported consumption of alcohol (41% in group with full health check v 17% in internal control group, P = 0.001) fruit and vegetables (24% v 12%, P < 0.001), and fat (30% v 9%, P < 0.001). Comparison of all groups showed no advantage from feedback of cholesterol concentration or risk score, or both.
conclusionsThe health check only had a small effect on reversible coronary risk. It was effective in influencing self reported alcohol consumption and diet. Feedback on cholesterol concentration and on risk score did not provide additional motivation for a change in behaviour.
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.