ReviewBMC cardiovascular disorders2023
Examining the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programs for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: a critical review.
Review in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving outcomes in acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of home-based compared to hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation and usual care: 3-4 months (end of the program) and 9-10 months (6 months after the end of the program).American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure: effects on echocardiographic parameters and functional capacity: a randomized clinical trial.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- JUMPSTART: evaluation of an early mobilization program following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Observational
- Family caregivers' contributions to self-care behaviors among heart failure patients in Oman.PloS one · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programs on health outcomes of persons with heart failure: An umbrella review.Belitung nursing journal · 2025Review
- Optimizing Cardiac Rehabilitation in Heart Failure: Comprehensive Insights, Barriers, and Future Strategies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Optimisation of Remote Monitoring Programmes in Heart Failure: Evaluation of Patient Drop-Out Behaviour and Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure (HF) is the most common cardiovascular reason for hospital admission, particularly among patients older than 60 years old. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) comprises approximately 50% of all heart failure cases. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) is an alternative option to enhance the participation rate in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) interventions for patients who are not able to attend center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR). The purpose of this review is to clarify the extent to which present studies of HBCR align with the core components defined by both the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the British Association for Cardiac Prevention and Rehabilitation (BACPR).
methodsA critical review was conducted through four databases, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, to identify randomized controlled trials up until June 2022. We scrutinized the commonalities between BACPR and ESC and developed a list of standards. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool.
resultsAmong the 87 papers selected for full-text screening, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six papers possessed a high proportion of fidelity to essential standards, four studies had a medium alliance, and one intervention had a low level of alliance.
conclusionOverall, the majority of included studies had medium to high alignment with standards and core components. However, a need for more attention to long-term strategy as an important standard is revealed. Rapid identification and initial assessment are the most met standards; however, lifestyle risk factor management and long-term outcomes were recognized as the least met standards.
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.