ArticleWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2011
[Outpatient cardiac phase III rehabilitation at a Viennese institution - retrospective cohort study].
Article in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective cohort study analyses effectiveness and sustainability of the current cardiac Phase III (Ph-III) rehabilitation program, provided by the Centre for Outpatient Rehabilitation (ZAR).
methodsWe analysed routine data of 451 intervention group patients (IG, with Ph-III) and 781 control group patients (KG, without Ph-III).
resultsIn a median observation period of 2.73 years we found 30% less cases of death in the IG based on the mortality risk observed in the KG (rr = 0.70; p = 0.108). However, we registered more re-events, mainly stent implantations in the IG (rr = 1.34; p = 0.095). Groups differed in some baseline characteristics.
conclusionsThe lower mortality risk by trend might be explained by the close-meshed care, the IG patients' more health conscious behaviour or a selection bias of the KG (e.g. more severe underlying disease). The causality of potential positive effects cannot be confirmed by this study because of the study design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21638217What OpenQuestion holds
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.