Cited by 183Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsHealthcare Systems and Public Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Five-Year Outcomes of the Danish Cardiovascular Screening (DANCAVAS) Trial

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited data suggest a benefit of population-based screening for cardiovascular disease with respect to the risk of death. METHODS: We performed a population-based, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial involving men 65 to 74 years of age living in 15 Danish municipalities. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (the invited group) or not to undergo screening (the control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease. Randomization was based on computer-generated random numbers and stratified according to municipality. Only the control group was unaware of the trial-group assignments. Screening included noncontrast electrocardiography-gated computed tomography to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation, ankle-brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension, and a blood sample to detect diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. The primary outcome was death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 46,611 participants underwent randomization. After exclusion of 85 men who had died or emigrated before being invited to undergo screening, there were 16,736 men in the invited group and 29,790 men in the control group; 10,471 of the men in the invited group underwent screening (62.6%). In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 2106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3915 men (13.1%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.00; P = 0.06). The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, as compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99); for myocardial infarction, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.35). There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: After more than 5 years, the invitation to undergo comprehensive cardiovascular screening did not significantly reduce the incidence of death from any cause among men 65 to 74 years of age. (Funded by the Southern Region of Denmark and others; DANCAVAS ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN12157806.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa2208681

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 13 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–183 of 183

Metadata

Authors
Lindholt, J. S., Søgaard, R., Rasmussen, L. M., Mejldal, A., Lambrechtsen, J., Steffensen, F. H., Frost, L., Egstrup, K., Urbonaviciene, G., Busk, M., & Diederichsen, A. C. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • From the Departments of Cardiac, Thoracic, and Vascular Surgery (J.S.L., R.S.), Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology (L.M.R.), and Cardiology (A.C.P.D.), Elite Research Center for Individualized Medicine in Arterial Diseases, and the Open Patient Data Explorative Network (A.M.), Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark (R.S.), Odense, the Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg (J.L., K.E.), the Department of Cardiology, Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle (F.H.S., M.B.), and the Department of Cardiology, Diagnostic Center, Regional Hospital Silkeborg, Silkeborg (L.F., G.U.) — all in Denmark.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2022-10-13
Volume
387
Issue
15
Pages
1385-1394
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W4293872316
Cited by
182
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 12
FWCI
32.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Hjerteforeningen
  • Danish Independent Research Councils
  • Helsefonden
  • Odense Universitetshospital
  • Region of Southern Denmark
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Healthcare Systems and Public Health
Keywords
cardiovascular screening, coronary artery calcium score, aortic aneurysm, atrial fibrillation, peripheral arterial disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic dissection, aortic rupture
MeSH terms
Aged, Calcium, Cardiovascular Diseases, Denmark, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Incidence, Cardiac-Gated Imaging Techniques, Peripheral Arterial Disease

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review