Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27730298›Full record

Trial reportHeart and vessels2017

Internet-based training of coronary artery patients: the Heart Cycle Trial.

Erik Skobel, Christian Knackstedt, Alvaro Martinez-Romero, Dario Salvi, Cecilia Vera-Munoz, Andreas Napp, Jean Luprano, Ramon Bover, Sigrid Glöggler, Birna Bjarnason-Wehrens and 3 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Heart and vessels, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 12 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.

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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Interventions to promote patient utilisation of cardiac rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors.

Erik SkobelClinic for Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Rosenquelle, Kurbrunnenstraße 5, 52077, Aachen, Germany. erik.skobel@rosenquelle.de.
Christian KnackstedtDepartment of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Alvaro Martinez-RomeroITACA Institute, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Dario SalviLife Supporting Technologies, Departamento de Tecnología Fotónica y Bioingeniería, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Cecilia Vera-MunozLife Supporting Technologies, Departamento de Tecnología Fotónica y Bioingeniería, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Andreas NappDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology, Pneumology and Intensive Care, Medicine, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Jean LupranoCentre Suisse d'Electronique et de Microtechnique SA, 2002, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Ramon BoverServicio de Cardiología, Hospital Clínico Universitario San Carlos de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Sigrid GlögglerDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology, Pneumology and Intensive Care, Medicine, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Birna Bjarnason-WehrensInstitute for Cardiology and Sports Medicine, German Sports University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Nikolaus MarxDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology, Pneumology and Intensive Care, Medicine, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Alan RigbyHull-York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
John ClelandHull-York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) might be improved by remote monitoring systems that can be used to motivate and supervise patients and tailor CR safely and effectively to their needs. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a smartphone-guided training system (GEX) and whether it could improve exercise capacity compared to CR delivered by conventional methods for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). A prospective, randomized, international, multi-center study comparing CR delivered by conventional means (CG) or by remote monitoring (IG) using a new training steering/feedback tool (GEx System). This consisted of a sensor monitoring breathing rate and the electrocardiogram that transmitted information on training intensity, arrhythmias and adherence to training prescriptions, wirelessly via the internet, to a medical team that provided feedback and adjusted training prescriptions. Exercise capacity was evaluated prior to and 6 months after intervention. 118 patients (58 ± 10 years, 105 men) with CAD referred for CR were randomized (IG: n = 55, CG: n = 63). However, 15 patients (27 %) in the IG and 18 (29 %) in the CG withdrew participation and technical problems prevented a further 21 patients (38 %) in the IG from participating. No training-related complications occurred. For those who completed the study, peak VO

Indexed as

Exercise ToleranceAgedCardiac RehabilitationCoronary Artery DiseaseElectrocardiography, AmbulatoryExercise TestFemaleGermanyHeart RateHumansInternetLinear ModelsMaleOxygen ConsumptionPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicCardiac rehabilitationExercise trainingMonitoring

Identifiers

PMID27730298

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.