73
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

      1 , 1 , 1 , 1
      Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group
      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. These aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is, therefore, important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes such as blood pressure and serum cholesterol levels. We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to July 2012. Two authors screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trialists about additional studies. We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. For mortality outcomes we analysed the results with random-effects model meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible. We included 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182,880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (155,899 participants, 11,940 deaths), median follow-up time nine years, giving a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (152,435 participants, 4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.17) and eight trials on cancer mortality (139,290 participants, 3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings.We did not find an effect on clinical events or other measures of morbidity but one trial found an increased occurrence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia with screening and one trial found an increased occurence of self-reported chronic disease. One trial found a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared to the control group. No trials compared the total number of prescriptions, but two out of four trials found an increased number of people using antihypertensive drugs. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self-reported health, but this could be due to reporting bias as the trials were not blinded. We did not find an effect on admission to hospital, disability, worry, additional visits to the physician, or absence from work, but most of these outcomes were poorly studied. We did not find useful results on the number of referrals to specialists, the number of follow-up tests after positive screening results, or the amount of surgery. General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow-up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow-up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

          Related collections

          Most cited references252

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rosiglitazone revisited: an updated meta-analysis of risk for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality.

            Controversy regarding the effects of rosiglitazone therapy on myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality persists 3 years after a meta-analysis initially raised concerns about the use of this drug. To systematically review the effects of rosiglitazone therapy on MI and mortality (CV and all-cause). We searched MEDLINE, the Web site of the Food and Drug Administration, and the GlaxoSmithKline clinical trials registry for trials published through February 2010. The study included all randomized controlled trials of rosiglitazone at least 24 weeks in duration that reported CV adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) for MI and mortality were estimated using a fixed-effects meta-analysis of 56 trials, which included 35 531 patients: 19 509 who received rosiglitazone and 16 022 who received control therapy. Rosiglitazone therapy significantly increased the risk of MI (OR, 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.63; P = .04) but not CV mortality (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78-1.36; P = .86). Exclusion of the RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes) trial yielded similar results but with more elevated estimates of the OR for MI (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.02-1.89; P = .04) and CV mortality (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.92-2.33; P = .11). An alternative analysis pooling trials according to allocation ratios allowed inclusion of studies with no events, yielding similar results for MI (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.62; P = .04) and CV mortality (OR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.75-1.32; P = .96). Eleven years after the introduction of rosiglitazone, the totality of randomized clinical trials continue to demonstrate increased risk for MI although not for CV or all-cause mortality. The current findings suggest an unfavorable benefit to risk ratio for rosiglitazone.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart disease.

              Multiple risk factor interventions using counselling and educational methods assumed to be efficacious and cost-effective in reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality and morbidity and that they should be expanded. Trials examining risk factor changes have cast doubt on the effectiveness of these interventions. To assess the effects of multiple risk factor interventions for reducing total mortality, fatal and non-fatal events from CHD and cardiovascular risk factors among adults assumed to be without prior clinical evidence CHD.. We updated the original search BY SEARCHING CENTRAL (2006, Issue 2), MEDLINE (2000 to June 2006) and EMBASE (1998 to June 2006), and checking bibliographies. Randomised controlled trials of more than six months duration using counselling or education to modify more than one cardiovascular risk factor in adults from general populations, occupational groups or specific risk factors (i.e. diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, obesity). Two authors extracted data independently. We expressed categorical variables as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where studies published subsequent follow-up data on mortality and event rates, we updated these data. We found 55 trials (163,471 participants) with a median duration of 12 month follow up. Fourteen trials (139,256 participants) with reported clinical event endpoints, the pooled ORs for total and CHD mortality were 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.05) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.07), respectively. Total mortality and combined fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events showed benefits from intervention when confined to trials involving people with hypertension (16 trials) and diabetes (5 trials): OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.89) and OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.83), respectively. Net changes (weighted mean differences) in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (53 trials) and blood cholesterol (50 trials) were -2.71 mmHg (95% CI -3.49 to -1.93), -2.13 mmHg (95% CI -2.67 to -1.58 ) and -0.24 mmol/l (95% CI -0.32 to -0.16), respectively. The OR for reduction in smoking prevalence (20 trials) was 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.00). Marked heterogeneity (I(2) > 85%) for all risk factor analyses was not explained by co-morbidities, allocation concealment, use of antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering drugs, or by age of trial. Interventions using counselling and education aimed at behaviour change do not reduce total or CHD mortality or clinical events in general populations but may be effective in reducing mortality in high-risk hypertensive and diabetic populations. Risk factor declines were modest but owing to marked unexplained heterogeneity between trials, the pooled estimates are of dubious validity. Evidence suggests that health promotion interventions have limited use in general populations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                October 17 2012
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Rigshospitalet; The Nordic Cochrane Centre; Blegdamsvej 9, 7811 Copenhagen Denmark 2100
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub2
                23076952
                4c4f295f-7e86-43f2-903a-25dc62bfe982
                © 2012
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content2,294

                Cited by45

                Most referenced authors2,599