ArticleDigital health
Cost-effectiveness analysis of digital therapeutics for home-based cardiac rehabilitation for patients with atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mitigating Blue-Light Risk in Display-Based Digital Therapeutics: A Practical Framework to Support Clinical Efficacy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Closing the quality gap: analysis of implementation barriers and interventions for postoperative exercise rehabilitation for patients with radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Health economic evaluations of digital health technologies-a rapid review of applied methods.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Assessment of priorities, quality, and inclusivity of digital therapeutics trials in China.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Adoption of Digital Therapeutics in Europe.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, numerous guidelines and expert consensuses have recommended that digital technologies and products, such as digital therapeutics (DTx), be incorporated into cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Objective: The study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of DTx for home-based CR (HBCR) with that of the conventional HBCR for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after catheter ablation in a real-world clinical setting. Methods: Based on a single-center, prospective, blinded, randomized, parallel controlled trial of DTx-based HBCR for AF patients after catheter ablation, 100 AF patients undergoing catheter ablation were selected and randomized at a 1:1 ratio into a UC group (conventional HBCR) and DT group (DTx-based HBCR). The intervention lasted for 12 weeks. Medical cost data and clinical efficacy data (VO Results: In the DT group (n = 49), the mean QALYs increased 0.119 ± 0.09, VO Conclusion: DTx-based HBCR is more effective and cost-effective than conventional HBCR.
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.