The initial target of clinical electrocardiography was the characterization of arrhythmias and conduction disturbances, followed by the recognition of the value of 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) in diagnosing and tracking the progression of acute ischemic events.Resting and exercise electrocardiography then expanded into the realm of identification and risk stratification of patients with known or suspected coronary heart disease, based on prior events or symptoms.Resting and exercise ECGs were subsequently used to screen asymptomatic individuals for the presence of unsuspected disease. Although precise data are not available, resting and exercise ECG examinations of asymptomatic patients became commonplace as part of routine annual examinations until a series of analyses led multiple professional societies to recommend against such practice. In parallel with this, recognition of risk factors for atherosclerotic disease became more sophisticated, and risk-scoring profiles capable of classifying high-, intermediate-, and low-risk subgroups were developed over time. 1 However, the power of individual risk prediction remained limited, and there was motivation to reevaluate the screening ECG question because of the population burden of cardiovascular disease.In 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published an analysis of screening ECGs for coronary heart disease risk prediction 2 that revisited a previous statement in 2004. The latter was inconclusive because of the absence of studies that evaluated outcomes derived from screening asymptomatic patients with resting or exercise ECGs or electron beam computed tomography. 3 The 2012 statement suggested that asymptomatic individuals considered at low risk for coronary heart disease based on risk scoring methods, such the Framingham Risk Score and the Pooled Cohort Equations, and management of their risk factors, did not achieve sufficient added predictive value from resting and exercise ECGs to warrant routine use of these tests in practice, and made a recommendation against use of these tests for the low-risk population. 2 However, for patients at intermediate or high risk based on risk factor profiles, the report concluded that evidence was insufficient to state whether there was enough added value to justify the use of these procedures for screening, and the recommendation remained indeterminate, as in 2004. This left clinicians with uncertainty regarding screening ECGs for intermediate-and high-risk patients.In this issue of JAMA, the USPSTF provides an updated Recommendation Statement 4 along with an accompanying