DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2015.14174
The authors thank Dr Romanens for his valuable comments [1]. In our review article we consider cardiac computed tomography as an alternative to coronary angiography, especially in patients at intermediate risk for coronary heart disease [2]. We are fully aware that Dr Romanens does not agree with this recommendation by the Swiss Medical Board. These contradicting views have been published in detail elsewhere [3, 4].
We fully agree with Dr Romanens that every technique and examination needs adequate training and quality control. Furthermore, we also agree that cardiovascular risk calculation has to respect the population for which it has been validated. We included the Framingham risk calculator in our recommendation because the Swiss Medical Weekly targets an international readership also.
The aim of this review was to give as comprehensive an overview as possible, considering space limitations, on the various topics that should be addressed during a check-up examination. We did not comment on differing opinions between Dr Romanens and the Swiss Medical Board regarding cholesterol treatment in healthy individuals as this was beyond the scope of the check-up and thus our review.
1 Romanens M. Clarification of check-up reccomendations in adults. [Letter to the editor]. Swiss Med Wkly. 2015;145:w14170.
2 Virgini V, Meidl-Fridez C, Battegay E, Zimmerli LU. Check-up examination: recommendations in adults. Swiss Med Wkly. 2015;145:w14075 http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2015-14075/ .
3 Romanens M, Ackermann F, Kurth F. Fachliche Mängel im jüngsten Bericht des Swiss Medical Board. Schweiz Ärzteztg. 2013;94:1363–4.
4 Metzger U, Bohnenblust H, im Namen des Fachgremiums Swiss Medical Board. Kommentar zur Stellungnahme des VEMS zum Bericht des Swiss Medical Board. Schweiz Ärzteztg. 2013;94:1367.