ReviewCardiology research and practice2019
Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cardiology research and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation for COPD in Different Settings: A Systematic Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Pooled it
- Effects of real-time remote cardiac rehabilitation on exercise capacity and quality of life: a quasi-randomised controlled trial.BMC geriatrics · 2023Trial
- Successful Implementation and Development of a Phase II Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: A China-Wide Cross-Sectional Study Tracking In-service Training Clinical Staff.Frontiers in public health · 2021Trial
- Landscape Analysis of Literature Using Quantitative Approaches to Synthesize Economic Evaluation Studies: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- The continuum of prevention and heart failure in cardiovascular medicine: A joint scientific statement from the Heart Failure Society of America and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Cardiac rehabilitation for patients with obesity: lessons learned from the OPTICARE XL trial.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Review
- Effect of preoperative inspiratory muscle training on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Nutritional Status in Patients Undergoing Phase II Cardiac Rehabilitation by Mini Nutritional Assessment.Cardiology research · 2023Article
- Potential Role of Global Longitudinal Strain in Cardiac and Oncological Patients Undergoing Cardio-Oncology Rehabilitation (CORE).Clinics and practice · 2023Review
- Association of objectively measured daily physical activity and health utility to disease severity in chronic heart failure patients: A cross-sectional study.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2021Article
- Exercise tolerance and quality of life in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Preliminary Pilot Study of Combined Effects of Physical Activity and Achievement of LDL-Cholesterol Target on Coronary Plaque Volume Changes in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Patient Commitment to Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Qualitative Study.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
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
backgroundMedical costs associated with cardiovascular disease are increasing considerably worldwide; therefore, an efficacious, cost-effective therapy which allows the effective use of medical resources is vital. There have been few economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), especially meta-analyses of medical cost versus patient outcome.
methodsThe target population in this meta-analysis included convalescent and comprehensive CR patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), the status most commonly observed postmyocardial infarction (MI). Here, we evaluated medical costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost-effectiveness, mortality, and life year (LY). Regarding cost-effectiveness analysis, we analyzed medical costs per QALY, medical costs per LY, and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). We then examined the differences in effects for the 2 treatment arms (CR vs. usual care (UC)) using the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD).
resultsWe reviewed 59 studies and identified 5 studies that matched our selection criteria. In total, 122,485 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that the CR arm significantly improved QALY (SMD: -1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.69, -0.87) compared with UC. Although medical costs tended to be higher in the CR arm compared to the UC arm (SMD: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.13), cost/QALY was significantly improved in the CR arm compared with the UC arm (SMD: -0.31; 95% CI: -0.53, -0.09). The ICURs for the studies (4 RCTs and 1 model analysis) were as follows: -48,327.6 USD/QALY; -5,193.8 USD/QALY (dominant, CR is cheaper and more effective than UC); and 4,048.0 USD/QALY, 17,209.4 USD/QALY, and 26,888.7 USD/QALY (<50,000 USD/QALY, CR is costlier but more effective than UC), respectively. Therefore, there were 2 dominant and 3 effective results.
conclusionsWhile there are some limitations, primarily regarding data sources, our results suggest that CR is potentially cost-effective.
Identifiers
What 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.