ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2024
The Accessibility and Effect of Cardiac Rehabilitation in COVID-19 Pandemic Era.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prognostic Factors for Responders of Home-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation-Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo prospectively compare the efficacy of conventional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) and home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
methodsNinety Patients were divided into HBCR and CBCR groups based on cardiovascular risk stratification and individual preference. The CBCR group performed supervised in-hospital exercise training 2-3 times/week and subsequent self-exercise at home. The HBCR group performed self-exercise at home after one or two sessions of exercise education. The cardiopulmonary exercise test results at baseline and those at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups were analyzed as primary outcome.
resultsThe peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2, mL/kg/min) in the CBCR group was 20.1 and 24.0 at baseline and 12 months, respectively, showing significant improvement (p=0.006). In the HBCR group, it only increased from 24.4 to 25.5, showing suboptimal improvement. A significant increase in the Korean activity scale/index was confirmed only in the CBCR group (p=0.04). The cardiovascular outcome did not differ between the two groups, nor did the dropout rate or demographic factors.
conclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, only CBCR was associated with a significant improvement in peak VO2 and physical activity levels, a finding that differs from those of other studies and seems to be affected by COVID-19. Therefore, in situations where the importance of HBCR is emphasized, it is essential to introduce measures to monitor and enhance exercise adherence among participants.
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.