Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10455092›Full record

ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)1999

Cardiac rehabilitation: socially deprived patients are less likely to attend but patients ineligible for thrombolysis are less likely to be invited.

M R Melville, C Packham, N Brown, C Weston, D Gray

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M R MelvilleDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, D Floor, South Block, Queen's Medical Centre, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
C Packham
N Brown
C Weston
D Gray
Queen's Medical Centre · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify factors associated with the uptake of cardiac rehabilitation following acute myocardial infarction.

designRetrospective analysis using multivariate logistic regression modelling.

settingTwo large teaching hospitals in Nottingham. PATIENTS: Cohorts of patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction in 1992 and 1996.

interventionsNone.

main outcome measuresFactors in multivariate analysis found to be associated with attendance at cardiac rehabilitation. Use of secondary prevention in those who were and were not invited and those who did and did not attend cardiac rehabilitation.

results58% of all patients were offered cardiac rehabilitation. Attendance rates were 60% in 1992 and 74% in 1996. Invitations were more likely to be offered to younger patients, those who had received thrombolysis, and to patients admitted to one of the two Nottingham hospitals. Use of secondary prevention was only 48% in 1992 but this increased to 80% in 1996. Patients not receiving secondary prevention were less likely to be invited to cardiac rehabilitation. Social deprivation was the only factor significantly associated with poor uptake of cardiac rehabilitation in both years. There was no difference in the use of secondary prevention between those who did and did not attend cardiac rehabilitation.

conclusionThose invited to attend a cardiac rehabilitation programme are likely to be in a good prognosis group, comprising those who are young and have received thrombolysis. Those at greatest risk, particularly patients from socially deprived areas, seem to be missing out on the potential benefits of cardiac rehabilitation. High risk patients should be specifically targeted to ensure that they are invited to, and encouraged to, attend a programme of cardiac rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CarePovertyAdultAgedCohort StudiesEnglandFemaleHospitals, TeachingHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPatient SelectionRehabilitation CentersRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID10455092
PMCPMC1729163
OpenAlexW2137324400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.