SynthesisOpen heart2025
The effect of strength training interventions on people with congenital heart disease: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2025. 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.
- Strength and resistance training in adult congenital heart disease: A guide to exercise prescription in the clinic.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2026Review
- How to Evaluate and Adjust the Recommended Level of Physical Activity in Patients with Congenital Heart Diseases? A Practical Approach.Journal of clinical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the effectiveness and safety of strength training (ST) interventions in people with congenital heart disease (ConHD).
methodsParticipants included people of all ages diagnosed with all complexity of ConHD. Interventions included strength training or inspiratory muscle training (IMT) which were delivered in whole or as part of a more holistic programme. Included studies were randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. A comprehensive literature search using five databases until June 2023 was conducted. Two authors independently screened all the identified studies and assessed the risk of bias. Due to the paucity of studies and significant differences in study design, albatross plots were produced, and synthesis without meta-analyses was used to assist in the interpretation of results.
resultsA total of 26 studies were included with a total of 659 participants (53% female). Three of five studies demonstrated that ST significantly improves muscle strength. The albatross plots (20 studies) compared peak oxygen consumption (peak V̇O
conclusionThis systematic review indicates a moderate improvement in muscle strength by ST alone, with a small improvement in peak V̇O
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.