ArticleBMJ open2023
Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of an integrated telerehabilitation platform for home-based cardiac REHABilitation in patients with heart failure (E-REHAB): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traditional and Virtual Cardiac Rehabilitation: Understanding the Changing Landscape of Cardiac Rehabilitation and the Implications on Patient Outcomes.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Integrating Internet of Things into cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure: a review of emerging technologies.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 18 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiac rehabilitation (CR) is strongly recommended as a medical treatment to improve the prognosis and quality of life of patients with heart failure (HF); however, participation rates in CR are low compared with other evidence-based treatments. One reason for this is the geographical distance between patients' homes and hospitals. To address this issue, we developed an integrated telerehabilitation platform, RH-01, for home-based CR. We hypothesised that using the RH-01 platform for home-based CR would demonstrate non-inferiority compared with traditional centre-based CR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The E-REHAB trial aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RH-01 for home-based CR compared with traditional centre-based CR for patients with HF. This clinical trial will be conducted under a prospective, randomised, controlled and non-inferiority design with a primary focus on HF patients. Further, to assess the generalisability of the results in HF to other cardiovascular disease (CVD), the study will also include patients with other CVDs. The trial will enrol 108 patients with HF and 20 patients with other CVD. Eligible HF patients will be randomly assigned to either traditional centre-based CR or home-based CR in a 1:1 fashion. Patients with other CVDs will not be randomised, as safety assessment will be the primary focus. The intervention group will receive a 12-week programme conducted two or three times per week consisting of a remotely supervised home-based CR programme using RH-01, while the control group will receive a traditional centre-based CR programme. The primary endpoint of this trial is change in 6 min walk distance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The conduct of the study has been approved by an institutional review board at each participating site, and all patients will provide written informed consent before entry. The report of the study will be disseminated via scientific fora, including peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: jRCT:2052200064.
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.