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 .
The Multifactor Primary Prevention Trial in Göteborg, Sweden. Comparison with a previously untreated population sample.
All male inhabitants of the city of Göteborg , who were born between 1915 - 1922 and 1924 - 1925 were included in the trial , and were 47 to 55 years of age on entry to the study in 1970 to 1973 . One-third of these men were r and omly allocated to an intervention group , whilst the other two-thirds acted as controls . Men of all social classes , employed as well as unemployed , health conscious as well as careless , were invited , with 75 % of these responding to the invitation . The intervention group contained 10,000 men and the control group 20,000 men . The intervention group were given advice on diet , both individually and in groups , the type of advice depending upon serum cholesterol level .  Smokers were advised to stop smoking , and men with elevated blood pressure were treated with antihypertensive drugs . Due to the large size of the groups and because they formed a r and om population sample , it was assumed that they had similar characteristics at the start of the trial . Risk factors were only measured in the intervention group at this time , followed by intervention . This design feature solved several ethical problems with regard to no treatment in the control group . These men were , however , subjected to health examinations and treatment as well as general health advice . Risk factor levels were measured in the intervention group , and also in r and om sub sample s ( 11 % ) of the control group after 4 and 10 years . Serum cholesterol , blood pressure and smoking decreased among men in both groups , and only slightly more in the intervention group . ( ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS
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 .