ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2024
Randomized Controlled Trial of Cardiac Rehabilitation Using the Balance Exercise Assist Robot in Older Adults with Cardiovascular Disease.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2024. 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.
- Balance and Mobility Impairment in Older Adults with Cardiovascular Disease Before and After Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Effects of Non-Pharmacological Interventions on the Biopsychosocial Health of Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Chronic Heart Failure: An Integrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Effectiveness of Personalized Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation on Fall Risk: A Retrospective Controlled Study with a 6-Month Follow-Up.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Impact of Virtual Reality on Cardiopulmonary Function and Adherence in Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Incorporating Implementation Science Into Frailty Interventions for Cardiovascular Disease.JACC. Advances · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies have investigated the effects of exercise on the functional capacity of older adults; training with a balance exercise assist robot (BEAR) effectively improves posture. This study compared the clinical safety and efficacy of training using BEAR video games to conventional resistance training in older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD).
methodsNinety patients (mean age: 78 years) hospitalized due to worsening CVD were randomized to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) Group R (conventional resistance training) or Group B (training using BEAR). After appropriate therapy, patients underwent laboratory testing and functional evaluation using the timed up-and-go test (TUG), short physical performance battery (SPPB), and functional independence measure (FIM) just before discharge and 4 months after CR. The rates of CVD readmission, cardiac death, and fall-related fractures were monitored.
resultsBEAR had no adverse effects during exercise. At 4 months, TUG and SPPB improved significantly in both groups, with no significant difference between them. FIM motor and the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index were significantly improved in Group B versus Group R. There was no significant difference in cardiac events and fall-related fractures between the two groups.
conclusionCR with BEAR is safe and comparable to conventional resistance training for improving balance in older adults with CVD.
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.