ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Among Attendees From a Large Health Care System During the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac Rehabilitation-Current Paradigms and Challenges Across the Cardiovascular Continuum.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Therapeutic Adherence During Cardiac Rehabilitation After Myocardial Infarction.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Few studies have evaluated home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) during the pandemic, compared to prepandemic center-based CR (CBCR), with respect to patient characteristics, participation rates, and its efficacy on clinical metrics, health-related quality of life (QoL), and modifiable risk factors. Objectives: We aimed to describe patient characteristics and participation rates for those attending HBCR compared to patients who attended CBCR and compare the effects of HBCR vs CBCR on clinical metrics, health-related QoL, and modifiable risk factors in CR patients pre vs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A retrospective cohort study comparing 511 HBCR patients and 765 CBCR patients from the Mayo Clinic Health System. HBCR included 12 sessions. Conventional CBCR included 36 sessions. Clinical outcomes before and after CR were assessed. Results: The HBCR group demonstrated a smaller proportion of patients referred for coronary artery diseases (45.2% vs 63.3%) than the CBCR group ( Conclusions: Patients participating in HBCR during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated similar participation rates compared to CBCR. HBCR appears to be similarly effective at improving several intermediate outcomes compared to CBCR. HBCR may be a suitable alternative CR delivery model to increase CR participation for a wide range of clinical indications and improve clinical outcomes in patients who are unable to participate in CBCR.
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.