ArticlePediatric cardiology2023
FORCE Risk Stratification Tool for Pediatric Cardiac Rehabilitation and Fitness Programs.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac evaluation of paediatric athletes.European heart journal · 2026Guideline
- Brazilian Guideline for Exercise Testing in Children and Adolescents - 2024.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Guideline
- Exercise Counseling in Congenital Heart Disease: A Guide for the Pediatric and Congenital Cardiologist.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Review
- Exercise Testing and Counseling in Patients with Tetralogy of Fallot: A Guide for the Pediatric and Congenital Cardiologist.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Review
- ehealth technology in cardiac exercise therapeutics for pediatric patients with congenital and acquired heart conditions: a summary of evidence and future directions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Positive mindset and exercise capacity in school-aged children and adolescents with congenital heart disease.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk stratification is required to set an exercise prescription for cardiac rehabilitation, but an optimal scheme for congenital heart disease (CHD) is unknown. We piloted a system based on hemodynamic rather than anatomic factors: function, oxygen level, rhythm, complex/coronary anatomy, and elevated load (FORCE). Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the FORCE tool were evaluated. Patients < 22 years old participating in the Cardiac Fitness Program at Boston Children's Hospital between 02/2017 and 12/2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Assigned FORCE levels, anatomy, adverse events, fitness and exercise test data were collected. Of 63 attempts at FORCE classification, 62 (98%) were successfully classified while one with restrictive cardiomyopathy was not. Thirty-nine (62%) were FORCE 1, 16 (25%) were FORCE 2, and seven (11%) were FORCE 3. Almost half of FORCE 1 patients had simple or complex CHD and the majority of FORCE 2 patients had single ventricle CHD. FORCE 3 patients were more likely to have serious arrhythmias or cardiomyopathy than those in FORCE 1 or 2 (p < 0.001). Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome patients appeared in FORCE 1 only. No adverse events occurred over 958 total sessions. The total number of fitness sessions/participant was similar across FORCE levels. It was feasible to risk stratify patients with CHD using a clinical FORCE tool. The tool was effective in categorizing patients and simple to use. No adverse events occurred with fitness training over nearly 1000 exercise training sessions. Adding diastolic dysfunction to the original model may add utility.
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.