ReviewPatient preference and adherence2024
Summary of Best Evidence to Address Kinesiophobia Post Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Evidence-Based Review.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Proposing an explanatory framework based on the fear-avoidance model: a mixed-methods analysis of kinesiophobia in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention in home-based cardiac rehabilitation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing Kinesiophobia in Patients After Ischemic Stroke Stent Placement: A Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for concurrent identification of kinesiophobia in older patients with coronary heart disease after percutaneous coronary intervention.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study is to systematically explore and summarize the best evidence on intervention programs for patients with kinesophobia following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to provide a comprehensive reference for clinical practice interventions. Methods: Evidence on interventions for kinesophobia post-PCI was retrieved from Chinese and international integrated databases, treatment guidelines, and websites of professional associations, including systematic reviews and expert consensuses. The evidence considered in this study extends up to May 2022, encompassing information available since the inception of the databases. Two researchers independently evaluated the articles included in the review and extracted and summarized the available evidence. Results: By extracting and integrating data from the 14 articles included in this review, we identified six categories: pre-intervention assessment, psychological intervention, health education, rehabilitation training, social support, and quality control. A total of 21 pieces of evidence were summarized, including mental health assessment, physical fitness evaluation, timing and content of health education, development of personalized exercise prescriptions, and risk control. Conclusion: In clinical settings, using evidence-based practices requires developing feasible intervention programs based on comprehensive consideration of hospital resources, allocation of medical personnel, and consideration of patients' preferences to reduce the kinesophobia of patients post-PCI and improve their compliance with exercise rehabilitation.
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.