ArticleInternational journal of preventive medicine2026
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Home based versus Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation on Mortality in Myocardial Infarction Survivors.
Article in International journal of preventive medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myocardial infarction (MI) is a health concern with different mortality rates even with advanced treatment. Home care is a new approach for monitoring and providing care to MI patients after discharge. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of home based versus comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation recommendations on mortality among MI survivors. Method: This randomized clinical trial at Cardiac Rehabilitation Research Center, Isfahan, involved myocardial infarction survivors. Participants were divided into intervention (home based CR) and control (comprehensive CR) groups with a block randomization method. Mortality, returning to work, and rehospitalization rates of both groups were assessed and compared at 6, 12, and 60 months after MI. Results: Totally 259 participants were included in this study. Baseline variables were relatively similar in both groups. The odds of death in home care were 45% less than the control group (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.21 - 1.45, Conclusions: The study found a 45% lower risk of death in the home based group, which was not statistically significant, possibly due to sample size limitations. However, the rate of returning to work activity was higher in the home based CR group. The home based method can be chosen as an alternative to comprehensive CR based on decision-making with the patient, specialists, and caregivers.
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.