ArticleBMJ open2021
Comparative effectiveness of exercise training program in patients with heart failure: protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHeart failure (HF) is an end-stage of numerous heart diseases including hypertension, coronary heart disease and arrhythmia, in which the heart is unable to perform its circulatory function with sufficient efficiency due to structural or functional dysfunction (systolic or diastolic alterations). Strategies such as exercise rehabilitation may improve cardiac function, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life and reduce anxiety and depression in patients with HF. However, the relative effectiveness as well as the hierarchy of exercise interventions have not been well established, although various exercise options are available. Therefore, this protocol proposes to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) aiming to compare the effectiveness of different types of exercise training in patients with HF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library will be searched from inception to March 2021 for relevant randomised controlled trials. Other resources, such as Google Scholar and Clinical Trials.gov will also be considered. Studies assessing exercise rehabilitation in patients with HF will be selected. Two independent reviewers will identify eligible trials. The PEDro risk of bias assessment tool will be used to assess the quality of the included studies. Bayesian NMA will be used when possible to determine the comparative effectiveness of the different exercise interventions. The mean ranks and surface will estimate the ranking probabilities for the optimal intervention of various treatments under the cumulative ranking curve. Subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression will be conducted to explain the included studies' heterogeneity if possible. We will also use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to assess the strength of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review and NMA will synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of the different exercises in patients with HF. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. No ethical approval will be required because the data used for the review will be exclusively extracted from published studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020165870.
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.