Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16971975›Full record

GuidelineThe Canadian journal of cardiology2006

Universal access: but when? Treating the right patient at the right time: access to cardiac rehabilitation.

William Dafoe, Heather Arthur, Helen Stokes, Louise Morrin, Louise Beaton, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Access to Care Working Group on Cardiac Rehabilitation

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus StatementPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02778165 (My Cardiac Recovery), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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.

NCT02778165 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

My Cardiac Recovery (MyCaRe): A Pilot RCT to Examine the Effect of MyCaRe Android Application on Recovery Outcomes and Enrolment in Cardiac Rehab Post Cardiac Surgery.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Health Network, TorontoRan2022 to 2024Enrolled40ConditionsPostoperative, Dysfunction Following Cardiac SurgeryArmsMyCaRe (my cardiac recovery Android application)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Clinician's Commentary on Moncion et al.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Telerehabilitation for patients with heart failure.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2015
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

William DafoeUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. williamdafoe@cha.ab.ca
Heather Arthur
Helen Stokes
Louise Morrin
Louise Beaton
Canadian Cardiovascular Society Access to Care Working Group on Cardiac Rehabilitation

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society formed an Access to Care Working Group ('Working Group') in the spring of 2004. The mandate of the group was to use the best science and information to establish reasonable triage categories and safe wait times for access to common cardiovascular services and procedures. The present commentary presents the rationale for benchmarks for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) services. The Working Group's search for evidence included: a full literature review of the efficacy of CR, and the factors affecting access and referral to CR; a review of existing guidelines for access to CR; and a national survey of 14 CR programs across Canada undertaken in May 2005 to solicit information on referral to, and wait times for, CR. The Working Group also reviewed the results of The Ontario Cardiac Rehabilitation Pilot Project (2002) undertaken by the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario, which reported the average and median wait times for CR. Some international agencies have formulated their own guidelines relating to the optimal wait time for the onset of CR. However, due to the limited amount of supporting literature, these guidelines have generally been formed as consensus statements. The Canadian national survey showed that few programs had guidelines for individual programs. The Cardiac Care Network of Ontario pilot project reported that the average and median times from a cardiac event to the intake into CR were 99 and 70 days, respectively. The national survey of sampled CR programs also revealed quite remarkable differences across programs in terms of the length of time between first contact to first attendance and to commencement of exercise. Programs that required a stress test before program initiation had the longest wait for exercise initiation. Some patients need to be seen within a very short time frame to prevent a marked deterioration in their medical or psychological state. In some cases, early intervention and advocacy may reduce the risk of loss of employment. Or, there may be profound disturbances in the patient's family as a result of the cardiac event. For other patient groups, preferable wait times vary from one to 30 days, and acceptable wait times vary from seven to 60 days. All cardiovascular disease patients require core aspects of CR services. Patients who would derive benefit from formal CR programs should be provided the opportunity, given the proven efficacy and cost effectiveness of CR.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingWaiting ListsCanadaCardiac RehabilitationCardiologyCardiovascular DiseasesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPatient SelectionPractice Patterns, Physicians'SafetyTimeTriage

Identifiers

PMID16971975
PMCPMC2570237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.