Discrepancies in low-value practices across cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. A narrative review
European Journal of General Practice, cilt.32, sa.1, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 32 Sayı: 1
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1080/13814788.2026.2729221
- Dergi Adı: European Journal of General Practice
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Directory of Open Access Journals, Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition (EBSCO), Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Cardiovascular diseases, low-value practices, overutilisation
- Trakya Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Background: Low-value practices are interventions that do not provide health benefits due to lack of effectiveness or associated risks that outweigh the potential benefits. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to demonstrate discrepancies across various cardiovascular prevention guidelines published by numerous institutions and organisations, and establish an objective overview of the current state of the art and formulate recommendations for general practitioners. Methods: A narrative review of clinical practice guidelines for CVD prevention published in English between January 2017 and December 2025 was conducted. Searches focused on major European, British, North American, and Australian scientific societies; only guidelines containing explicit recommendations on low-value or unnecessary practices were included. We identified the scientific evidence supporting these recommendations and searched for ongoing clinical trials–specifically in cases where recommendations were based on a single randomised trial, large non-randomised studies, retrospective data, or expert opinion. Results: Guidelines show significant discrepancies regarding recommendations for low-value practices. These primarily relate to the evaluation of the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, determination of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and the initiation of lipid-lowering treatment in older adults. Controversy and uncertainty were most evident when recommendations were based on non-randomised clinical trials or expert opinion. Conclusions: While some guidelines align, others exhibit clear discrepancies, illustrating the uncertainty of the scientific evidence and differing interpretations. Until robust evidence from high-quality clinical trials becomes available, clinicians should exercise caution regarding certain screening procedures and therapeutic interventions in CVD prevention within general practice.