Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 15, 2026

Hydra, a Computer-Based Platform for Aiding Clinicians in Cardiovascular Analysis and Diagnosis
Published on: September 26, 2018
Cardiovascular Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review of Guidelines
Mohammed Y Khanji1, Vinícius V S Bicalho1, Claudia N van Waardhuizen1
1From Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Federal University of Juiz de Fora School of Medicine, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Insights
Current cardiovascular disease screening guidelines lack consensus on optimal strategies and treatment thresholds. This review highlights discrepancies to aid clinicians in primary prevention decision-making for healthy adults.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Preventive Medicine
- Health Policy
Background:
- Numerous guidelines exist for cardiovascular disease (CVD) primary prevention screening and risk assessment in healthy individuals.
- The need for clear, consistent guidance is paramount for effective clinical decision-making.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review current primary prevention guidelines for adult cardiovascular risk assessment.
- To identify and highlight similarities and differences among these guidelines to support clinicians.
Main Methods:
- A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and CINAHL from May 2009 to June 2016.
- Guidelines from Western countries recommending cardiovascular risk assessment for healthy adults were identified and screened.
- The rigor of guideline development was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.
Main Results:
- Of 21 identified guidelines, 17 demonstrated considerable rigor in development.
- Recommendations covered total CVD risk, dysglycemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension assessment.
- While most guidelines advocate for screening using prediction models, no consensus exists on screening strategies, target populations, tests, or treatment thresholds.
Conclusions:
- Significant discrepancies persist among cardiovascular screening guidelines.
- There is a lack of consensus on optimal screening strategies and treatment thresholds for primary CVD prevention.
- Further harmonization of guidelines is needed to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes.
Background:
Many guidelines exist for screening and risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy persons.
Purpose:
To systematically review current primary prevention guidelines on adult cardiovascular risk assessment and highlight the similarities and differences to aid clinician decision making.
Data Sources:
Publications in MEDLINE and CINAHL between 3 May 2009 and 30 June 2016 were identified. On 30 June 2016, the Guidelines International Network International Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and Web sites of organizations responsible for guideline development were searched.
Study Selection:
2 reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify guidelines from Western countries containing recommendations for cardiovascular risk assessment for healthy adults.
Data Extraction:
2 reviewers independently assessed rigor of guideline development using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument, and 1 extracted the recommendations.
Data Synthesis:
Of the 21 guidelines, 17 showed considerable rigor of development. These recommendations address assessment of total cardiovascular risk (5 guidelines), dysglycemia (7 guidelines), dyslipidemia (2 guidelines), and hypertension (3 guidelines). All but 1 recommendation advocates for screening, and most include prediction models integrating several relatively simple risk factors for either deciding on further screening or guiding subsequent management. No consensus on the strategy for screening, recommended target population, screening tests, or treatment thresholds exists.
Limitation:
Only guidelines developed by Western national or international medical organizations were included.
Conclusion:
Considerable discrepancies in cardiovascular screening guidelines still exist, with no consensus on optimum screening strategies or treatment threshold.
Primary Funding Source:
Barts Charity.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Assessment of the Cardiovascular System I: Subjective Data
Initial Enquiry
Ask the patient about their primary concern and thoroughly explore all reported symptoms.
Medical History
Investigate past illnesses affecting the cardiovascular system, such as angina, anemia, rheumatic fever, congenital heart disease, stroke, thrombophlebitis, dysrhythmias, varicosities
Inquire about symptoms...
Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
Assessment of the Cardiovascular System II: Inspection
Head and Neck
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Cardiovascular Drugs: Classification based on Therapeutic Indications
Coronary Artery Disease I: Introduction

