ReviewCureus2026
Indian Expert Consensus on Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation in the Management of Cardiovascular Disease.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a structured, multidisciplinary, supervised program designed for patients recovering from cardiovascular (CV) events. This consensus aims to establish expert recommendations regarding hybrid CR (HCR) in the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in India. The objective was to review the existing literature and develop Indian expert opinions on HCR for CVD management. A comprehensive review of the current literature on HCR was conducted by experts. Based on the evidence gathered, the experts confirmed 10 statements regarding the management of CVD using HCR. These statements were presented at a conference booth, during a conference, where responses were collected from cardiac experts. The statements were graded based on the level of evidence: Level A evidence, indicating strong evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or meta-analyses; Level B, moderate evidence from RCTs with surrogate measures, observational studies, or meta-analyses; and Level C, weak evidence from observational studies, surrogate measures, or expert opinion. Of these 10 statements, six received Level A evidence, two received Level B evidence, and the remaining two received Level C. Feedback was documented, and the statements were finalized into a consensus. The consensus emphasizes the importance of acceptance, duration, monitoring, medication adherence, and the structure of HCR, as well as the roles of the CR team and the outcomes of HCR for patients with CVD. HCR is reported to enhance patients' adherence to medication, exercise, and diet, improve quality of life, and reduce the risk of CVD. Thus, the study successfully developed an expert consensus on HCR, offering valuable insights for its future integration into CR practices in India.
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.