SynthesisOpen heart2025
Socioeconomic variation in the relationship between cardiac rehabilitation participation and clinical outcomes: 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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo systematically evaluate whether relationships between cardiac rehabilitation participation and clinical outcomes, return to work, or knowledge about cardiovascular disease vary across socioeconomic indicators.
methodsA systematic review was conducted using CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase and Medline up to 1 November 2024. Studies were included if they compared outcomes between participants who received cardiac rehabilitation and those who did not or received an exercise programme. Outcomes included all-cause death, all-cause and cardiovascular-related rehospitalisation, return to work and cardiovascular knowledge, stratified by socioeconomic indicators. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions-I tool.
resultsSix studies involving 555 731 participants were included. Compared with non-participants, cardiac rehabilitation participants had lower rates of all-cause death (12.3%-16.9%) and all-cause rehospitalisation (15.2%-16.1%), with incidence rate differences in cardiovascular-related rehospitalisation reaching up to 27.8 fewer events/100 person-years. Some of the greatest differences were among participants residing in more disadvantaged areas, although this was not consistent across studies. No significant differences were observed in the combined outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular-related rehospitalisation when stratified by educational attainment levels. Return to work and knowledge outcomes showed greater variation across education and income subgroups, with higher values consistently observed among cardiac rehabilitation participants from less disadvantaged backgrounds. All studies were observational and had moderate risk of bias.
conclusionsCardiac rehabilitation improves clinical and functional outcomes across socioeconomic subgroups, although disparities in participation and outcomes persist. Tailoring programme delivery to be more flexible and responsive to literacy needs may help ensure its benefits are equitably achieved across patient subgroups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022332355.
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.