Protocol
General health checks (multi-organ screening of asymptomatic adults)
Cochrane 2019 update (Krogsbøll et al.; PMID PubMed ID: the permanent number the US National Library of Medicine gives a published paper. Each one links to that paper's record on PubMed. 30699470): 17 randomized trials, 251,891 participants, comparing general health checks (screening for more than one disease or risk factor across more than one organ system) against no health checks in adults unselected for disease.
Grade D, tested: a human randomized trial looked for a benefit on the endpoint The outcome a trial measures to decide whether the treatment worked, such as heart attacks, blood pressure or a symptom score. graded and did not find one. How to read a grade →
At a glance
General health checks are routine checkups and test panels for adults who feel well. A careful review pooled 17 studies with about 250,000 people. People offered regular checkups did not live longer, and they had no fewer deaths from heart disease or cancer than people who were not offered them. That is a strong result based on very large numbers of people.
- What was measured
- Deaths from any cause, from cancer and from heart disease, in adults offered general checkups compared with adults not offered them.
- How big
- Death rates were the same in both groups (a ratio of 1.00, across 233,298 people and 21,535 deaths). The summary gives a relative figure, not the number of people, but it shows no benefit.Read from the summary of PMID 30699470.
- Who it applies to
- Adults not chosen for any disease or risk factor, offered checkups of the kind used in past decades, not the large blood panels sold today.
- Safety
- Screening leads to more tests and treatment, and a normal result can give false comfort to someone with symptoms.
- Compared with
- No health checks.
- Certainty
- Grade D, resting on: Cochrane meta-analysis A study that pools the numbers from several trials into one combined estimate. of randomized trials (found no mortality benefit → D).
- What would change this grade
- Could rise to C with: Randomized controlled trial People are assigned to the treatment or a comparison by chance, so the groups differ only in what they received. It is the design that can show cause and effect. of a modern general health check with current tests, against usual care. Who: Adults aged 40 to 70 unselected for disease, at least 20,000 per arm. Measured: All-cause death, with heart and cancer deaths, and harms from follow-up tests and treatment counted. Length: At least 10 years.
- Cost
- No price recorded yet.
- Sources
- 3 studies cited on this record, listed under Sources.
Cochrane 2019 update (Krogsbøll et al.; PMID 30699470): 17 randomized trials, 251,891 participants, comparing general health checks (screening for more than one disease or risk factor across more than one organ system) against no health checks in adults unselected for disease. All-cause mortality RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants; 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence; I² = 0%). Cancer mortality RR 1.01 (0.92 to 1.12; high-certainty). Cardiovascular mortality RR 1.05 (0.94 to 1.16; moderate-certainty). Fatal and non-fatal ischemic heart disease RR 0.98 (0.94 to 1.03; high-certainty). The review authors conclude general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial. Jørgensen et al. (BMJ, 2014; PMID 24912589): Inter99, the largest single modern trial, 59,616 Danish adults randomized to screening with repeated lifestyle counseling or no invitation; at 10 years no difference in ischemic heart disease (hazard ratio How often an event happened in the treated group compared with the control group over the same period. A ratio of 0.80 means 20 percent fewer events. 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13), stroke or total mortality (1.00, 0.91 to 1.09). Wang et al. (BMC Public Health, 2026; PMID 42414985): systematic review A review that searches for every study on a question using a method set in advance, then assesses them together. to July 2025, 22 randomized trials among 56 studies; most trials showed no reduction in all-cause mortality and none showed a reduction in cardiovascular events. Scope note: the trials tested health checks of their era, questionnaires, examination, a few laboratory tests and often counseling, not the 100-plus marker direct-to-consumer blood panels sold today. No randomized trial has tested a consumer advanced-biomarker panel against any clinical endpoint. Individual markers measured within such panels (ApoB Apolipoprotein B, a protein carried once on each cholesterol particle that can enter the artery wall, so it counts those particles directly., Lp(a) Lipoprotein(a), a cholesterol-carrying particle whose level is set largely by genetics., HbA1c A blood test that reflects average blood sugar over the previous two to three months.) carry their own separate evidence and their own separate grades.
Why this letter
Why this gradeGrade D, tested, no benefit. The reasoning, and what the grade does not cover.
Grade D on Route 2 Human randomized trials have been run and did not show benefit on the stated outcome. One of the two routes to the lowest letter on EBL's scale.: tested, no benefit demonstrated, at a level of certainty almost nothing else on this site reaches. The 2019 Cochrane review pooled 17 randomized trials and 251,891 participants comparing general health checks against no health checks in adults unselected for disease. All-cause mortality was RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.03, 11 trials, 233,298 participants, 21,535 deaths, high-certainty, I-squared 0%). Cancer mortality at RR 1.01 and ischemic heart disease at RR 0.98 were likewise flat. An interval that tight around 1.00 is not an underpowered null, it is a well-measured absence of effect. Inter99 (PMID 24912589), the largest single modern trial, and a 2026 systematic review through 2025 (PMID 42414985) agree.
WHAT THIS GRADE DOES NOT COVERthe pooled trials tested health checks of their era (questionnaires, examination, a few laboratory tests, often counseling), not the 100-plus marker direct-to-consumer panels sold today, and no randomized trial has tested a consumer advanced-biomarker panel against any clinical endpoint. Individual markers measured inside such panels, including ApoB, Lp(a) and HbA1c, carry their own evidence and their own separate grades. It also does not grade targeted screening in someone with a specific indication, which is a different question with different trials behind it.
A grade describes the human evidence for a named use. It is not advice, and it is not a judgment on any individual prescription. How the letters are decided →
Who responds: this record's trial reading reports no subgroup that identifies who responds.
Evidence notes: meta-analysis
Endpoint graded: All-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality in adults unselected for disease (hard)
Last reviewed: October 2026
The trial that would change this grade.
A positive trial of this shape would move this entry to C.
Why the current trials fall short
Seventeen trials with over 250,000 people found no effect on death. Only a large trial of a modern check, with harms from follow-up counted, could show a benefit the older trials missed.
Why people believe itNo human sources; two published case reports of benefit; no reports of harm.
The case for general health checks is that many serious diseases, from cancer to kidney and heart disease, start without symptoms, so testing healthy people should catch them early, when treatment works best. Stories of diseases found by chance at a checkup, and the check-up packages sold by clinics and employers, keep the idea familiar.
No study in people has been published, so there is no human source to list. The trial described above under Evidence wanted is what would move this letter.
A case report describes what happened to one or a few patients. It cannot show the treatment caused the change, and reports of success are published more often than reports of failure.
- In a person with no symptoms and normal blood tests, a PET scan at a health checkup showed bone marrow changes that led to a diagnosis of acute leukemia a month later. One patient, with no comparison. PMID 35228421
- A patient who had earlier aortic surgery had a dangerous abnormal channel between the aorta and the gut found by chance at a health checkup, and it was repaired. One patient, with no comparison. PMID 32743242
Searched PubMed, October 2026: 10 case report record(s) returned. Nine describe a disease found by chance at a checkup in someone without symptoms; two are listed. One is a commentary arguing that treadmill stress tests do not belong in routine checkup packages because of their false positives. None reports harm from the checkup itself, though the search asked for it.
ClinicalTrials.gov, the public registry run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, lists studies that are recruiting volunteers. The link below searches it for Health Check among studies recruiting now. EBL has no relationship with any listed study and receives no payment for this link.
Search recruiting studies of Health Check on ClinicalTrials.gov
Dose, form and timing
The existing trial evidence does not support routine multi-biomarker screening panels improving outcomes in asymptomatic adults. Where comprehensive panels are run, the informative readings are changes in actionable biomarkers A measurable sign in the body, such as a blood test value, used to track a condition or the effect of a treatment. (LDL Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, the cholesterol fraction most closely tied to plaque in the arteries., HbA1c, hsCRP High-sensitivity C-reactive protein, a blood marker of low-grade inflammation., ApoB) at baseline and 6 months, and whether results led to any change: the value lies in triggering behavior change, not in collecting numbers.
Safety
Screening moves people into diagnosis and treatment, and the Cochrane review on this record was conducted to weigh that against the benefit. More testing produces more findings to chase, and a normal panel can supply false reassurance in someone with symptoms who needs a different question asked.
Cautions documented in human studies. Each caution on this record, sorted by what it rests on.
- Overdiagnosis: screening moves people into further testing, diagnosis and treatment, the harm the Cochrane review weighed against benefit (PMID 30699470)
None recorded.
- False reassurance: a normal panel can reassure someone with symptoms who needs a different question asked
None recorded.
Does not apply: human harm data are listed above.
Grade history
How this letter has changedLatest: No. 154 · October 2026 · Corrected.
The record was named for serial multi-biomarker screening while its own scope note said the Cochrane trials tested health checks of their era; the name now says multi-organ screening of asymptomatic adults. Added: Jørgensen 2014 (PMID 24912589), Inter99, 59,616 people, null on ischemic heart disease, stroke and mortality at 10 years; Wang 2026 (PMID 42414985), a systematic review of 22 randomized trials through 2025 confirming no mortality or cardiovascular benefit; both beside Krogsbøll 2019 (PMID 30699470). The confidence intervals The range the true effect probably falls in. A wide interval means the estimate is uncertain. now read 'to' rather than a dash. Letter unchanged.PMID 24912589 PMID 42414985 PMID 30699470
Every change to a letter on this site is dated and published. The full evidence log →
Sources
- Citations
- Every paper cited on this page is matched to its PubMed record on every build.
- Retractions
- None of these papers is retracted or under a journal expression of concern. PubMed is checked again on every build.
- Read against the papers
- August 2026. By a language model (AI-assisted reading), not yet reviewed by a clinician.
- Outside review
- Not yet done. No reviewer outside EBL has checked this record.
What each of these checks can and cannot show: evidence integrity.
The evidence, in fullThree papers, each linked to its PubMed record.
Krogsbøll et al. (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019; PMID 30699470): 17 randomized trials, 251,891 participants; all-cause mortality RR 1.00. Jørgensen et al. (BMJ, 2014; PMID 24912589): Inter99, 59,616 people, null on ischemic heart disease, stroke and mortality at 10 years. Wang et al. (BMC Public Health, 2026; PMID 42414985): 2026 systematic review of 22 randomized trials confirming no mortality or cardiovascular benefit.
How EBL searched for the trials (1 search)
The search that was run, what it returned, and what was left out and why, so the absence of evidence can be checked as well as its presence.
("health check*"[tiab] OR "health examination*"[tiab]) AND mortality[tiab] AND (randomized controlled trial[pt] OR meta-analysis[pt] OR systematic review[pt])PubMed watch: does a new study change the grade? (nothing new)
No new paper matching the search behind this grade has been added to PubMed since October 2026.
Last run October 2026. A letter on EBL moves only after a logged review. A new paper never moves a letter by arriving: it is read, the answer is written here, and any change to the letter is published in the evidence log.
Disclosure
Educational use only · Not medical advice · EBL grades published human evidence and does not recommend treatment. Stopping a prescription is a decision for your physician.
Evidence Based Longevity, Inc. is owner-operated and edited by Arnold Sandlow, D.C., a California-licensed chiropractor. Evidence Based Longevity publishes in English only · Machine translations are not produced or reviewed by EBL for accuracy
Educational use only · Not medical advice · © Evidence Based Longevity, Inc. All rights reserved · Privacy · Disclosure · Terms · Accessibility · Clinical trials
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Any grade on this page describes the strength of published human trial evidence in the populations studied. It is not a recommendation for any individual and is not medical advice. Starting, stopping or changing any supplement or medication is a decision for your physician.
Grades move when new trials publish. A free monthly email lists every grade EBL moved, with the reason and the trial behind it: the sign-up is on the Evidence Log →