ArticleClinics and practice2022
Exercise Prescription and Progression Practices among US Cardiac Rehabilitation Clinics.
Article in Clinics and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Precision Cardiac Rehabilitation: Current Limitations and Future Opportunities of Omics and Artificial Intelligence.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Exercise intensity prescription in cardiovascular rehabilitation: bridging the gap between best evidence and clinical practice.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Effects of Low- and High-Frequency Cardiac Rehabilitation on Risk Factors, Physical Fitness and Quality of Life in Middle-Aged Women with Coronary Heart Disease.Metabolites · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about exercise prescription practices in cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to understand how initial exercise is prescribed and how exercise intensity is progressed among cardiac patients enrolled in United States CR programs.
methodsA 22-question survey was sent out to US CR clinics.
resultsNinety-three clinics responded to the survey. RPE was the most commonly reported exercise intensity indicator used for prescribing exercise, followed by resting HR + 20-30 bpm. Exercise progression practices were also based on patient sustained RPE values.
conclusionsExercise prescription practice has become reliant on subjective indicators of exercise intensity. This may limit patient outcomes, such as improvement in functional measures.
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.