ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparative efficacy of various exercise types and doses for quality of life in patients with heart failure: a network and dose-response meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heart failure (HF) significantly compromises quality of life (QoL). Although exercise interventions are a well-established strategy for improving QoL in patients with HF, the efficacy of various exercise modalities and effective doses remains unclear. This study aims to ascertain the efficacy of different exercise modalities and their relative doses in optimizing QoL in patients with HF. Methods: This systematic review and network meta-analysis searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving exercise interventions were included. Data on dose metrics (METs-min/week), treatment regimens, exercise intensity, and study duration were extracted and analyzed. Results: Thirty RCTs involving 1,780 participants were included in the review. High-intensity interval training (HIIT), combined aerobic and resistance training (CT), mind-body exercise (MBE), and resistance training (RT) all demonstrated substantial efficacy in improving QoL compared with the control group (SMD = -0.59, -0.57, -0.58, and -0.57; SUCRA: 64.8%, 63.9%, 62.1%, and 62%, respectively). The optimal doses were approximately 750, 1,000, 390, and 490 METs-min/week for HIIT, CT, MBE, and RT, respectively. While aerobic exercise (AE) also demonstrated efficacy, the observed therapeutic benefit was modest. Conclusion: HIIT, CT, MBE, and RT exhibit strong and comparable efficacy in improving QoL in patients with HF, whereas AE offers a more modest benefit. MBE demonstrates efficacy at relatively low doses, while CT and HIIT yield progressive improvements with increasing doses. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251181909, PROSPERO CRD420251181909.
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.