ArticlePloS one2020
Effects of neuromuscular training compared to classic strength-resistance training in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Combined Aerobic and Resistance Training on Exercise Capacity, Muscle Strength, Quality of Life, and Mortality in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of a neuromuscular rehabilitation programme on the quality of life of patients with acute coronary syndrome and its relationship with sexual dysfunction: a randomised controlled trial.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of neuromuscular versus classical strength-resistance training as part of a cardiac rehabilitation programme in patients following acute coronary syndrome. The study is designed as a double-blinded, randomised, and controlled clinical trial. Thirty participants suffering from acute coronary syndrome who meet our inclusion criteria will be recruited by a private tertiary hospital. The intervention group will follow 20 sessions of a cardiac rehabilitation programme divided into two parts: aerobic training and neuromuscular strength-resistance training. The control group will complete the same aerobic training as well as a classical strength-resistance training workout programme. The primary outcome of the study will be the mean difference in change from baseline in the Incremental Shuttle Walking Test. The secondary outcomes will be the cardiorespiratory fitness of the patients (assessed by means of the Chester Step Test), lower-limb performance (assessed with the 30-Second Chair Stand Test and Single-Leg Squat Test), lower-limb strength (hip flexor handheld dynamometry), sexual dysfunction assessment (Sex Health Inventory for Men) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). This work will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a neuromuscular versus a classic strength-training programme in terms of cardiorespiratory fitness, lower-limb performance capacities and quality of life, in cardiac patients. The data obtained could lead to more effective and functional workouts which, in turn, may enhance the speed at which these patients can return to their everyday activities of life and improve the efficiency of their movement patterns and heart responses. Furthermore, patients may find neuromuscular workout routines more motivating and engaging, thus encouraging them to adopt healthier lifestyle patterns.
Indexed as
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.