Should family physicians use coronary artery calcium scores to screen for coronary artery disease? No: screening is unproven, expensive, and potentially harmful.
Mark H. Ebell
Abstract
Mark H. Ebell
Abstract
No: Screening is Unproven, Expensive, and Potentially Harmful. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores have been recommended as a way to screen for coronary artery disease (CAD). Before we get too enthusiastic about this expensive new test, remember that a good screening test must perform significantly better than existing or less invasive tests, that the cost and risk should be low, and that using the test should improve patient-oriented outcomes. Unfortunately, CAC scoring does not meet any of these criteria.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
No: Screening is Unproven, Expensive, and Potentially Harmful. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores have been recommended as a way to screen for coronary artery disease (CAD). Before we get too enthusiastic about this expensive new test, remember that a good screening test must perform significantly better than existing or less invasive tests, that the cost and risk should be low, and that using the test should improve patient-oriented outcomes. Unfortunately, CAC scoring does not meet any of these criteria.
Key concepts: Medicine, Coronary artery disease, Coronary artery calcium, Test (biology), Disease, Artery, Screening test, Cardiology