Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .
Improving the reporting of randomised trials: the CONSORT Statement and beyond.
An extensive and growing number of review s of the published literature demonstrate that health research publications have frequent deficiencies . Of particular concern are poor reports of r and omised trials , which make it difficult or impossible for readers to assess how the research was conducted , to evaluate the reliability of the findings , or to place them in the context of existing research evidence . As a result , published reports of trials often can not be used by clinicians to inform patient care or to inform public health policy , and the data can not be included in systematic review s. Reporting guidelines are design ed to identify the key information that research ers should include in a report of their research . We describe the history of reporting guidelines for r and omised trials culminating in the CONSORT Statement in 1996 . We detail the subsequent development and extension of CONSORT and consider related initiatives aim ed at improving the reliability of the medical research literature
Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .