Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29654095›Full record

SynthesisHeart (British Cardiac Society)2018

Cardiac rehabilitation and physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Grace Olivia Dibben, Hasnain M Dalal, Rod S Taylor, Patrick Doherty, Lars Hermann Tang, Melvyn Hillsdon

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 213 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Grace Olivia DibbenEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, UK.
Hasnain M DalalEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, UK.
Rod S TaylorInstitute of Health Research (Primary Care), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Patrick DohertyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Lars Hermann TangNational Knowledge Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Melvyn HillsdonDepartment of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
University of Exeter · GBRoyal Cornwall Hospital · GBUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on physical activity (PA) levels of patients with heart disease and the methodological quality of these studies.

methodsDatabases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsychINFO and SportDiscus) were searched without language restriction from inception to January 2017 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CR to usual care control in adults with heart failure (HF) or coronary heart disease (CHD) and measuring PA subjectively or objectively. The direction of PA difference between CR and control was summarised using vote counting (ie, counting the positive, negative and non-significant results) and meta-analysis.

resultsForty RCTs, (6480 patients: 5825 CHD, 655 HF) were included with 26% (38/145) PA results showing a statistically significant improvement in PA levels with CR compared with control. This pattern of results appeared consistent regardless of type of CR intervention (comprehensive vs exercise-only) or PA measurement (objective vs subjective). Meta-analysis showed PA increases in the metrics of steps/day (1423, 95% CI 757.07 to 2089.43, p<0.0001) and proportion of patients categorised as physically active (relative risk 1.55, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.02, p=0.001). The included trials were at high risk of bias, and the quality of the PA assessment and reporting was relatively poor.

conclusionOverall, there is moderate evidence of an increase in PA with CR participation compared with control. High-quality trials are required, with robust PA measurement and data analysis methods, to assess if CR definitely leads to important improvements in PA.

Indexed as

Coronary DiseaseExerciseHeart FailureQuality of LifeCardiac RehabilitationExercise TherapyHumansRecovery of FunctionSecondary Preventioncardiac rehabilitationcoronary artery diseaseheart failuremeta-analysissystemic review

Identifiers

PMID29654095
PMCPMC6109237
OpenAlexW2798243705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.