ArticleBMJ open2025
Randomised controlled trial of standard outpatient cardiac rehabilitation versus personalised cardiac rehabilitation for secondary prevention for all in need (SPAN) after type 1 myocardial infarction.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiac rehabilitation after type 1 myocardial infarction (type 1 MI) is an effective but underutilised method of preventing new cardiac events. This study aims to determine whether a programme of personalised cardiac rehabilitation achieves better completion rates compared with a routine outpatient rehabilitation model post-type 1 MI. A secondary aim is to determine any differences in rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Secondary prevention for all in need (SPAN) is a prospective multisite single-blind comparative effectiveness randomised trial of personalised versus standard outpatient rehabilitation. Five hundred and thirty-two patients with a recent type 1 MI diagnosis will be randomised to either a personalised model of rehabilitation which includes flexibility in the components of rehabilitation and the time and location of contacts, or the standard outpatient model. Exclusion criteria include conditions associated with higher clinical risk to the participant, which introduce confounding to the study or interfere with a participant's ability to comply.The primary study endpoint is the proportion of patients who complete the assigned rehabilitation model. Completion of rehabilitation is defined as participation in ≥80% of all scheduled sessions, in either treatment arm. Assuming a power of 90% and an overall type 1 error of 5%, we expect that 50% of those randomised to usual care will meet the primary endpoint compared with 65% of those on personalised rehabilitation. To detect this difference of 15%, we require a sample size of 478 participants (239 per arm). Accounting for a conservative attrition rate of 10%, the total sample size required is 532. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received ethical approval from the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (ref. 2022/HRE00071) in September 2022, with an opt-out approach. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000316707.
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.