ArticleWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2018
Article in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation is an evidence-based treatment to improve prognosis and quality of life in patients after a cardiac event. In general, cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered in all European countries. Nevertheless a wide dispersion between countries exists in programme structure and design because of different national legislation and funding. The absence of international standards has a negative effect on programme quality and outcome. Most striking imbalance can be observed between patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation and the real admission rate. Only three European countries report an admission rate of more than 50% of all eligible patients, and less than 25% are women. Thus, rehabilitation programmes in Europe are too heterogeneous. This needs measures for better standardization from "best evidence" to "best practice". The "Quality of Care Continuum" of cardiac rehabilitation could be helpful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28913571What 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.