ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2025
Comparison of Center-Based and Tele-Cardiac Rehabilitation in Coronary Artery Disease: Effects on Functional Capacity, QoL, and Kinesiophobia.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intervention to improve kinesiophobia in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
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
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy, safety, and patient compliance of tele-cardiac rehabilitation (T-CR) versus center-based cardiac rehabilitation (C-CR) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). A secondary aim was to assess the effects of both interventions on quality of life (QoL) and kinesiophobia.
methodsThis nonrandomized, patient-preference controlled trial included 40 CAD patients (83% post-myocardial infarction) at a university hospital. Participants selected either C-CR or T-CR. The four-week intervention included supervised in-hospital exercise (C-CR) or telemonitored exercise with heart rate feedback (T-CR). The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak). Secondary outcomes included VO2 at ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VO2 at VAT), time to VAT, oxygen pulse, QoL, Fear of Activity in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (Fact-CAD) scores, and exercise adherence.
resultsBaseline VO2 peak was higher in the T-CR group (23.2±3.5 vs. 19.4±4.2, p=0.004). Rehabilitation improved VO2 peak (p<0.001), VO2 at VAT (p=0.004), and time to VAT (p<0.001) in both groups. Fact-CAD scores decreased (p=0.004), and QoL improved (p<0.001). However, C-CR led to greater kinesiophobia reduction (p=0.038) and slightly higher QoL improvements (p=0.05). T-CR participants completed more exercise sessions (14.9±2.9 vs. 12.0±0, p<0.001), with no serious adverse events reported. Conclusion: T-CR is a safe and effective alternative to C-CR, providing similar physiological benefits. However, C-CR may be superior in reducing kinesiophobia. Future studies should assess long-term adherence and psychological outcomes in diverse populations.
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.