SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Efficacy stratification of digital health modalities in home-based cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDigital health (DH) enables home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) for heart failure, but no prior systematic review has compared wearable-guided vs. interaction-guided DH modalities' efficacy on cardiorespiratory fitness, exercise capacity, and quality of life.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI until April 2025 for RCTs. Two investigators independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0, and graded evidence (GRADE).
resultsAnalysis of 20 RCTs (n = 4,652) showed DH-HBCR significantly improved 6-minute walk test (6MWT: MD = 21.92 m, 95% CI 12.27-31.58), peak oxygen uptake (VO₂peak: MD = 0.96 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 0.56-1.35), and quality of life (MLHFQ: MD = -7.21, 95% CI -11.40--3.02) versus control. Wearable-guided interventions provided superior gains in 6MWT (MD = 51.98 m, 95% CI 34.21-69.76; I² = 0%) and MLHFQ (MD = -11.14, 95% CI -14.55--7.72; I² = 0%), while interaction-guided interventions significantly improved VO₂peak (MD = 1.00 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 0.49-1.51; I² = 15.2%) more effectively.
conclusionsDH-mediated HBCR was associated with improved exercise capacity, cardiorespiratory fitness, and quality of life in patients with HF. Preliminary evidence suggests differential efficacy profiles between wearable-guided and interaction-guided modalities. Given the limitations of the included evidence, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating. Future research should develop phenotype-stratified protocols and conduct head-to-head RCTs to validate these observations.
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.