ReviewAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2025
Improving outcomes in acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of home-based compared to hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation and usual care: 3-4 months (end of the program) and 9-10 months (6 months after the end of the program).
Review in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2025. 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.
- TAMIS Consensus on Multidisciplinary Team Care in Post-Acute Stage of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Nutrition, Pharmacotherapy, and Cardiac Rehabilitation.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To assess the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) in improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and other outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), compared to hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and usual care. Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and included a comprehensive search across MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, Clinical Key, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to June 2023. A total of 19 studies with 2822 participants were included. Eligible RCTs assessed the impact of HBCR on ACS patients, comparing it with hospital-based CR or usual care. The primary outcome was QoL, with secondary outcomes including cardiovascular capacity, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and rehospitalization rates. Statistical analysis was conducted using a random-effects model in R Statistic. Results: HBCR improves QoL compared to all comparators (hospital-based CR and usual care) (SMD 0.17, 95 % CI 0.00 to 0.33). HBCR was equally effective as hospital-based CR in enhancing QoL, peak VO Conclusions: HBCR significantly improves QoL and is equally effective as hospital-based CR across all measured outcomes. Compared to usual care, HBCR leads to significant improvements in specific aspects of QoL as a primary outcome, as well as in HDL-cholesterol and triglyceride levels. However, its impact on other outcomes, such as peak VO
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.