ReviewPatient preference and adherence2026
Comparative Systematic Review of Home-Based and Center-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation of Delivery Models and Outcomes.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 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
Aim: Center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) is a cornerstone of secondary prevention, yet participation remains limited due to access constraints and adherence barriers. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) has evolved from conventional telephone- and logbook-supported programs to technology-assisted telerehabilitation. However, the extent to which specific delivery models translate into clinical and patient-centered benefits remains unclear. Purpose: To compare HBCR and CBCR delivery models and outcomes, and to evaluate whether variation in HBCR delivery approaches is associated with differences in functional capacity, adherence, quality of life, and cardiovascular risk factors. Patients and Methods: A PRISMA 2020-guided systematic review of randomized controlled trials compared HBCR with Phase II/III CBCR. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. Outcomes were synthesized narratively, and random-effects meta-analyses (inverse-variance) were conducted where data were sufficiently comparable for VO Results: Fourteen trials (2002-2023), including 1,085 participants (22-242 per study), were included. HBCR delivery clustered into traditional programs (exercise prescription with telephone/logbook follow-up) and technology-assisted models (web/app platforms, wearable monitoring, and/or video-supported supervision). Overall risk of bias was low in six trials, some concerns in seven, and high in one; concerns were most commonly related to randomization, while outcome measurement was consistently low risk. Meta-analysis favored HBCR for VO Conclusion: HBCR yields outcomes comparable to CBCR, with small advantages in 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.