Screening ECGs (either at rest or with exercise) are not recommended in those without symptoms who are at low risk. This includes those who are young without risk factors. In those at higher risk the evidence for screening with ECGs is inconclusive.

Additionally echocardiography, myocardial perfusion imaging, and cardiac stress testing is not recommended in those at low risk who do not have symptoms.

Some biomarkers may add to conventional cardiovascular risk factors in predicting the risk of future cardiovascular disease; however, the clinical value of some biomarkers is questionable.

The NIH recommends lipid testing in children beginning at the age of 2 if there is a family history of heart disease or lipid problems. It is hoped that early testing will improve lifestyle factors in those at risk such as diet and exercise.

Screening and selection for primary prevention interventions has traditionally been done through absolute risk using a variety of scores (ex. Framingham or Reynolds risk scores). This stratification has separated people who receive the lifestyle interventions (generally lower and intermediate risk) from the medication (higher risk). The number and variety of risk scores available for use has multiplied, but their efficacy according to a 2016 review was unclear due to lack of external validation or impact analysis. Risk stratification models often lack sensitivity for population groups and do not account for the large number of negative events among the intermediate and low risk groups. As a result, future preventative screening appears to shift toward applying prevention according to randomized trial results of each intervention rather than large-scale risk assessment.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issues recommendations for various cancers:

- Strongly recommends cervical cancer screening in women who are sexually active and have a cervix at least until the age of 65.

- Recommend that Americans be screened for colorectal cancer via fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy starting at age 50 until age 75.

- Evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against screening for skin cancer, oral cancer, lung cancer, or prostate cancer in men under 75.

- Routine screening is not recommended for bladder cancer, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, or prostate cancer.

- Recommends mammography for breast cancer screening every two years from ages 50–74, but does not recommend either breast self-examination or clinical breast examination. A 2013 Cochrane review concluded that breast cancer screening by mammography had no effect in reducing mortality because of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Unlike diagnostic efforts prompted by symptoms and medical signs, cancer screening involves efforts to detect cancer after it has formed, but before any noticeable symptoms appear. This may involve physical examination, blood or urine tests or medical imaging.

Cancer screening is not available for many types of cancers. Even when tests are available, they may not be recommended for everyone. "Universal screening" or "mass screening" involves screening everyone. "Selective screening" identifies people who are at higher risk, such as people with a family history. Several factors are considered to determine whether the benefits of screening outweigh the risks and the costs of screening. These factors include:

- Possible harms from the screening test: for example, X-ray images involve exposure to potentially harmful ionizing radiation

- The likelihood of the test correctly identifying cancer

- The likelihood that cancer is present: Screening is not normally useful for rare cancers.

- Possible harms from follow-up procedures

- Whether suitable treatment is available

- Whether early detection improves treatment outcomes

- Whether the cancer will ever need treatment

- Whether the test is acceptable to the people: If a screening test is too burdensome (for example, extremely painful), then people will refuse to participate.

- Cost

In the United States screening is typically recommended between the age of 50 and 75 years. For those between 76 and 85 years of age the decision to screen should be individualized. A number of screening methods can be used including stool based tests every 3 years, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years and colonoscopy every 10 years. For those at high risk, screenings usually begin at around 40. It is unclear which of these two methods is better. Colonoscopy may find more cancers in the first part of the colon but is associated with greater cost and more complications. For people with average risk who have had a high-quality colonoscopy with normal results, the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend any type of screening in the 10 years following the colonoscopy. For people over 75 or those with a life expectancy of less than 10 years, screening is not recommended. It takes about 10 years after screening for one out of a 1000 people to benefit.

In Canada, among those 50 to 75 at normal risk, fecal immunochemical testing or FOBT is recommended every two years or sigmoidoscopy every 10 years. Colonoscopy is less preferred.

Some countries have national colorectal screening programs which offer FOBT screening for all adults within a certain age group, typically starting between age 50 and 60. Examples of countries with organised screening include the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands.

Aspirin and celecoxib appear to decrease the risk of colorectal cancer in those at high risk. Aspirin is recommended in those who are 50 to 60 years old, do not have an increased risk of bleeding, and are at risk for cardiovascular disease to prevent colorectal cancer. It is not recommended in those at average risk. There is tentative evidence for calcium supplementation, but it is not sufficient to make a recommendation. Vitamin D intake and blood levels are associated with a lower risk of colon cancer.

Insufficient physical activity (defined as less than 5 x 30 minutes of moderate activity per week, or less than 3 x 20 minutes of vigorous activity per week) is currently the fourth leading risk factor for mortality worldwide. In 2008, 31.3% of adults aged 15 or older (28.2% men and 34.4% women) were insufficiently physically active.

The risk of ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus is reduced by almost a third in adults who participate in 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week (or equivalent). In addition, physical activity assists weight loss and improves blood glucose control, blood pressure, lipid profile and insulin sensitivity. These effects may, at least in part, explain its cardiovascular benefits.

Breast cancer screening refers to testing otherwise-healthy women for breast cancer in an attempt to achieve an earlier diagnosis under the assumption that early detection will improve outcomes. A number of screening tests have been employed including clinical and self breast exams, mammography, genetic screening, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging.

A clinical or self breast exam involves feeling the breast for lumps or other abnormalities. Clinical breast exams are performed by health care providers, while self-breast exams are performed by the person themselves. Evidence does not support the effectiveness of either type of breast exam, as by the time a lump is large enough to be found it is likely to have been growing for several years and thus soon be large enough to be found without an exam. Mammographic screening for breast cancer uses X-rays to examine the breast for any uncharacteristic masses or lumps. During a screening, the breast is compressed and a technician takes photos from multiple angles. A general mammogram takes photos of the entire breast, while a diagnostic mammogram focuses on a specific lump or area of concern.

A number of national bodies recommend breast cancer screening. For the average woman, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends mammography every two years in women between the ages of 50 and 74, the Council of Europe recommends mammography between 50 and 69 with most programs using a 2-year frequency, and in Canada screening is recommended between the ages of 50 and 74 at a frequency of 2 to 3 years. These task force reports point out that in addition to unnecessary surgery and anxiety, the risks of more frequent mammograms include a small but significant increase in breast cancer induced by radiation.

The Cochrane collaboration (2013) states that the best quality evidence neither demonstrates a reduction in cancer specific, nor a reduction in all cause mortality from screening mammography. When less rigorous trials are added to the analysis there is a reduction in mortality due to breast cancer of 0.05% (a decrease of 1 in 2000 deaths from breast cancer over 10 years or a relative decrease of 15% from breast cancer). Screening over 10 years results in a 30% increase in rates of over-diagnosis and over-treatment (3 to 14 per 1000) and more than half will have at least one falsely positive test. This has resulted in the view that it is not clear whether mammography screening does more good or harm. Cochrane states that, due to recent improvements in breast cancer treatment, and the risks of false positives from breast cancer screening leading to unnecessary treatment, "it therefore no longer seems beneficial to attend for breast cancer screening" at any age. Whether MRI as a screening method has greater harms or benefits when compared to standard mammography is not known.

The selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as tamoxifen) reduce the risk of breast cancer but increase the risk of thromboembolism and endometrial cancer. There is no overall change in the risk of death. They are thus not recommended for the prevention of breast cancer in women at average risk but may be offered for those at high risk. The benefit of breast cancer reduction continues for at least five years after stopping a course of treatment with these medications.

Prostate cancer screening is an attempt to find unsuspected cancers. Initial screens may lead to more invasive follow-up tests such as a biopsy. Options include the digital rectal exam (DRE) and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Such screening is controversial and, in some people, may lead to unnecessary disruption and possibly harmful consequences. Routine screening with either a DRE or PSA is not supported by the evidence as there is no mortality benefit from screening.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against the PSA test for prostate cancer screening in healthy men regardless of age. They concluded that the potential benefit of testing does not outweigh the expected harms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shared that conclusion. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American College of Physicians discourages screening for those who are expected to live less than ten to fifteen years, while in those with a greater life expectancy a decision should be made by the person in question based on the potential risks and benefits. In general, they concluded, "it is uncertain whether the benefits associated with PSA testing for prostate cancer screening are worth the harms associated with screening and subsequent unnecessary treatment." American Urological Association (AUA 2013) guidelines call for weighing the benefits of preventing prostate cancer mortality in 1 man for every 1,000 men screened over a ten-year period against the known harms associated with diagnostic tests and treatment. The AUA recommends screening decisions in those 55 to 69 be based on shared decision making, and that if screening is performed it should occur no more often than every two years.

In those who are being regularly screened, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor (finasteride and dutasteride) reduce the overall risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer; however, there is insufficient data to determine if they have an effect on the risk of death and may increase the chance of more serious cases.

Diagnosis can be based on a physical exam, blood test, EKG and the results of these tests (among other exams).

DNA testing is now the preferred method of establishing a diagnosis for MEN 2B, and is thought to be almost 100% sensitive and specific. Gordon et al. reported cases of a difference disease—the "multiple mucosal neuroma syndrome"—having the physical phenotype of MEN2B, but without variations in the RET gene and without malignancy.

MEN2B should be entertained as a diagnosis whenever a person is found to have either medullary thyroid carcinoma or pheochromocytoma. Before DNA testing became available, measurement of serum calcitonin was the most important laboratory test for MEN2B. Calcitonin is produced by the "C" cells of the thyroid, which, because they are always hyperplastic or malignant in MEN2B, produce more calcitonin than normal. Calcitonin levels remain a valuable marker to detect recurrence of medullary thyroid carcinoma after thyroidectomy.

Luxol fast blue staining identifies myelin sheathing of some fibers, and lesional cells react immunohistochemically for S-100 protein, collagen type IV, vimentin, NSE, and neural filaments. More mature lesions will react also for EMA, indicating a certain amount of perineurial differentiation. Early lesions, rich in acid mucopolysaccharides, stain positively with alcian blue. When medullary thyroid cancer is present, levels of the hormone calcitonin are elevated in serum and urine. Under the microscope, tumors may closely resemble traumatic neuroma, but the streaming fascicles of mucosal neuroma are usually more uniform and the intertwining nerves of the traumatic neuroma lack the thick perineurium of the mucosal neuroma. Inflammatory cells are not seen in the stroma and dysplasia is not present in the neural tissues.

Without treatment, persons with MEN2B die prematurely. Details are lacking, owing to the absence of formal studies, but it is generally assumed that death in the 30s is typical unless prophylactic thyroidectomy and surveillance for pheochromocytoma are performed (see below). The range is quite variable, however: death early in childhood can occur, and it is noteworthy that a few untreated persons have been diagnosed in their 50s. Recently, a larger experience with the disease "suggests that the prognosis in an individual patient may be better than previously considered."

Thyroidectomy is the mainstay of treatment, and should be performed without delay as soon as a diagnosis of MEN2B is made, even if no malignancy is detectable in the thyroid. Without thyroidectomy, almost all patients with MEN2B develop medullary thyroid cancer, in a more aggressive form than MEN 2A. The ideal age for surgery is 4 years old or younger, since cancer may metastasize before age 10.

Pheochromocytoma - a hormone secreting tumor of the adrenal glands - is also present in 50% of cases. Affected individuals are encouraged to get yearly screenings for thyroid and adrenal cancer.

Because prophylactic thyroidectomy improves survival, blood relatives of a person with MEN2B should be evaluated for MEN2B, even if lacking the typical signs and symptoms of the disorder.The mucosal neuromas of this syndrome are asymptomatic and self-limiting, and present no problem requiring treatment. They may, however, be surgically removed for aesthetic purposes or if they are being constantly traumatized.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2008 strongly recommends routine screening for men 35 years and older and women 45 years and older for lipid disorders and the treatment of abnormal lipids in people who are at increased risk of coronary heart disease. They also recommend routinely screening men aged 20 to 35 years and women aged 20 to 45 years if they have other risk factors for coronary heart disease. In 2016 they concluded that testing the general population under the age of 40 without symptoms is of unclear benefit.

In Canada, screening is recommended for men 40 and older and women 50 and older. In those with normal cholesterol levels, screening is recommended once every five years. Once people are on a statin further testing provides little benefit except to possibly determine compliance with treatment.

Diabetics, despite not having clinically detectable atherosclerotic disease, have more severe debility from atherosclerotic events over time than non-diabetics who have already had atherosclerotic events. Thus diabetes has been upgraded to be viewed as an advanced atherosclerotic disease equivalent.

It can be difficult to make a Vascular disease diagnosis since there are a variety of symptoms that a person can have, also family history and a physical examination are important. The physical exam may be different depending on the type of vascular disease. In the case of a peripheral vascular disease the physical exam consists in checking the blood flow in the legs.

Areas of severe narrowing, stenosis, detectable by angiography, and to a lesser extent "stress testing" have long been the focus of human diagnostic techniques for cardiovascular disease, in general. However, these methods focus on detecting only severe narrowing, not the underlying atherosclerosis disease. As demonstrated by human clinical studies, most severe events occur in locations with heavy plaque, yet little or no lumen narrowing present before debilitating events suddenly occur. Plaque rupture can lead to artery lumen occlusion within seconds to minutes, and potential permanent debility and sometimes sudden death.

Plaques that have ruptured are called complicated plaques. The extracellular matrix of the lesion breaks, usually at the shoulder of the fibrous cap that separates the lesion from the arterial lumen, where the exposed thrombogenic components of the plaque, mainly collagen will trigger thrombus formation. The thrombus then travels downstream to other blood vessels, where the blood clot may partially or completely block blood flow. If the blood flow is completely blocked, cell deaths occur due to the lack of oxygen supply to nearby cells, resulting in necrosis. The narrowing or obstruction of blood flow can occur in any artery within the body. Obstruction of arteries supplying the heart muscle results in a heart attack, while the obstruction of arteries supplying the brain results in a stroke.

Lumen stenosis that is greater than 75% was considered the hallmark of clinically significant disease in the past because recurring episodes of angina and abnormalities in stress tests are only detectable at that particular severity of stenosis.

However, clinical trials have shown that only about 14% of clinically debilitating events occur at sites with more than 75% stenosis. The majority of cardiovascular events that involve sudden rupture of the atheroma plaque do not display any evident narrowing of the lumen.

Thus, greater attention has been focused on "vulnerable plaque" from the late 1990s onwards.

Besides the traditional diagnostic methods such as angiography and stress-testing, other detection techniques have been developed in the past decades for earlier detection of atherosclerotic disease. Some of the detection approaches include anatomical detection and physiologic measurement.

Examples of anatomical detection methods include coronary calcium scoring by CT, carotid IMT (intimal media thickness) measurement by ultrasound, and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Examples of physiologic measurement methods include lipoprotein subclass analysis, HbA1c, hs-CRP, and homocysteine.

Both anatomic and physiologic methods allow early detection before symptoms show up, disease staging and tracking of disease progression. Anatomic methods are more expensive and some of them are invasive in nature, such as IVUS. On the other hand, physiologic methods are often less expensive and safer. But they do not quantify the current state of the disease or directly track progression. In recent years, developments in nuclear imaging techniques such as PET and SPECT have provided ways of estimating the severity of atherosclerotic plaques.

Among the diagnostic procedures done to determine a cardiomyopathy are:

- Physical exam

- Family history

- Blood test

- EKG

- Echocardiogram

- Stress test

- Genetic testing

Guidelines for referral to a nephrologist vary between countries. Though most would agree that nephrology referral is required by Stage 4 CKD (when eGFR/1.73m is less than 30 ml/min; or decreasing by more than 3 ml/min/year); and may be useful at an earlier stage (e.g. CKD3) when urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio is more than 30 mg/mmol, when blood pressure is difficult to control, or when hematuria or other findings suggest either a primarily glomerular disorder or secondary disease amenable to specific treatment. Other benefits of early nephrology referral include proper patient education regarding options for renal replacement therapy as well as pre-emptive transplantation, and timely workup and placement of an arteriovenous fistula in those patients opting for future hemodialysis