Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15728680›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of sports medicine2005

Physical activity levels during phase IV cardiac rehabilitation in a group of male myocardial infarction patients.

K Woolf-May, S Bird

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of sports medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

K Woolf-MayCanterbury Christ Church University College, Canterbury, Kent, UK. kw24@cant.ac.uk <kw24@cant.ac.uk>
S Bird

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine physical activity levels during phase IV cardiac rehabilitation in 31 male myocardial infarction patients (median age 62, range 53-77 years).

methodsPatients recorded daily physical activity over 16 weeks in a diary. Diaries were analysed for total general physical activity (TGPA), leisure time physical activity (LTPA), and "active for life" exercise classes (AFL). Pre- and post-observation period (OP) subjects underwent a 10 m shuttle walking test (SWT) to determine changes in aerobic fitness. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) determined exercise intensity. Estimated gross energy expenditure (EEE) was determined by a regression equation between RPE and Vo(2) (l min(-1)) during SWT. A total of 97% of subjects were on lipid lowering medication.

resultsThere were no correlations between Vo(2) (l min(-1)) and body mass, therefore kcal min(-1) indicated activity intensity. There were no significant changes in physical activity patterns or in aerobic fitness. Estimated total LTPA (median 1376, range 128-3380 kcal week(-1)) was less than that recommended to improve aerobic fitness and/or slow progression of coronary artery disease. Sixteen subjects attended a median of 29 (range 1-46) AFL during LTPA; one way ANOVA showed these subjects worked at greater EEE (AFL, n = 16, 6.6 (standard deviation 1.4) v no-AFL, n = 15, 5.1 (1.8) EEE kcal min(-1), p = 0.017).

conclusionPhysical activity was stable, but patients' EEE appeared insufficient to improve aerobic fitness or slow progression of coronary artery disease. It was suggested that the promotion of LTPA and the availability of AFL classes should be reconsidered.

Indexed as

AgedAnalysis of VarianceEnergy MetabolismExerciseHumansLeisure ActivitiesLife StyleMaleMedical RecordsMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionOxygen ConsumptionPhysical ExertionPhysical FitnessWalking

Identifiers

PMID15728680
PMCPMC1725153

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.