If you were paying attention last week, you will know that "do health checks work?" is the wrong question. It should be "under what circumstances do..." or "to what extent do...".
This week's article is a systematic review. Gathering all available information is of course a sensible strategy for answering any research question. And doing so systematically, rather than by a search of one's own filing cabinet and memory, is also sensible. So systematic reviews are rightly placed at the top of our hierarchy of evidence. But that's why I am so suspicious of them. We tend nowadays to see "Systematic review" and assume without further thought that truth has at last been revealed.
But of course the strength of a systematic review depends on the strength of what's included. To see what I mean read this critique - then, if you have strength go on to the systematic review.