Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34071598›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?

Kym Joanne Price, Brett Ashley Gordon, Stephen Richard Bird, Amanda Clare Benson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

Kym Joanne PriceDiscipline of Exercise Sciences, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia.
Brett Ashley GordonHolsworth Research Initiative, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC 3550, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8864-2128
Stephen Richard BirdDiscipline of Exercise Sciences, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3047-7390
Amanda Clare BensonDepartment of Health and Biostatistics, Sport Innovation Research Group, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progression of prescribed exercise is important to facilitate attainment of optimal physical capacity during cardiac rehabilitation. However, it is not clear how often exercise is progressed or to what extent. This study evaluated whether exercise progression during clinical cardiac rehabilitation was different between cardiovascular treatment, age, or initial physical capacity. The prescribed exercise of sixty patients who completed 12 sessions of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation at a major Australian metropolitan hospital was evaluated. The prescribed aerobic exercise dose was progressed using intensity rather than duration, while repetitions and weight lifted were utilised to progress resistance training dose. Cardiovascular treatment or age did not influence exercise progression, while initial physical capacity and strength did. Aerobic exercise intensity relative to initial physical capacity was progressed from the first session to the last session for those with high (from mean (95%CI) 44.6% (42.2-47.0) to 68.3% (63.5-73.1);

Indexed as

Cardiac RehabilitationAustraliaExerciseExercise TestExercise TherapyHumanscardiovascular diseasecoronary artery bypass surgeryexercise capacityexercise prescription

Identifiers

PMID34071598
PMCPMC8197818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.