ArticlePloS one2026
Concurrent training in cardiac rehabilitation: A scoping review of aerobic-strength combinations in patients with coronary artery disease.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Concurrent training (CT), defined as the integration of aerobic and strength exercise modalities, is increasingly implemented within cardiac rehabilitation (CR) to improve cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health. However, CT prescriptions vary markedly, and the characteristics and application of CT within CR have not been comprehensively mapped. This scoping review examined how CT has been designed and delivered in CR and summarised reported outcomes across International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains. A systematic search of databases and supplementary sources was conducted from October 2023 to December 2025. Clinical trials evaluating CT compared with usual care or aerobic training alone were eligible. Fourteen trials (n = 1,037; 13 randomised, 1 single-group) were included. CT programmes varied widely in setting (hospital, community, hybrid), CR phase (II-III), duration (5-32 weeks), and training structure. Aerobic training was delivered using continuous aerobic training (CAT), aerobic interval training (AIT), or high-intensity interval training (HIIT), with intensities prescribed using peak oxygen uptake (V̇O₂peak), maximum heart rate (HRmax), heart rate reserve (HRR), work rate, ventilatory threshold, or rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Modalities ranged from cycle ergometers and treadmills to multimodal or circuit-based formats. Strength-training prescriptions differed in targeted muscle groups, sets (2-8), repetitions (8-20), equipment (e.g., machines, free weights, TheraBand), and intensity anchors (% of one repetition maximum, RPE, % of maximum voluntary contraction). Application of progressive overload was inconsistent across studies. Exercise capacity (primarily V̇O₂peak) and muscle strength were the most consistently assessed outcomes. No CT-related adverse events were reported. CT has been applied using diverse delivery formats and exercise prescriptions within CR. Physiological outcomes were most consistently measured, whereas activity and participation-level outcomes showed greater variability and limited long-term evaluation. Future research should prioritise clearer reporting of training parameters, examine CT within community and hybrid CR models, incorporate behavioural and patient-reported outcomes, and investigate sex-specific responses and long-term effects to inform scalable and contextually adaptable CT approaches.
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.