ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Optimal exercise prescription for patients with coronary heart disease across cardiac rehabilitation phases: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 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
Background: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is delivered across distinct clinical phases, yet the optimal exercise modality for improving cardiorespiratory fitness and functional capacity may differ by phase. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the relative effects of common exercise modalities on peak oxygen uptake (VO Methods: English and Chinese databases were searched from inception to April 30, 2026. Randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with coronary heart disease and evaluating exercise interventions were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. A frequentist network meta-analysis synthesized direct and indirect evidence within each phase (phase I inpatient, phase II early outpatient, phase III long-term maintenance). Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (VO Results: Eighty-seven trials (7,241 participants) were included, covering aerobic exercise (AE), resistance training (RT), combined aerobic plus resistance training (AE + RT), high-intensity interval training (HIIT), traditional Chinese exercise (TCE; e.g., Tai Chi/qigong/Baduanjin), aerobic exercise combined with traditional Chinese exercise (AE + TCE), and conventional therapy (CT). Evidence was phase-imbalanced (9 phase I, 39 phase II, and 40 phase III trials); one study contributed outcomes to both Phase II and Phase III analyses. In phase I, evidence was comparatively limited; for VO Conclusions: The relative effectiveness of exercise modalities appears phase-dependent. These findings support phase-tailored exercise prescription in coronary heart disease, while emphasizing the need for additional head-to-head trials-particularly in early inpatient rehabilitation-to strengthen comparative evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251156834, PROSPERO, identifier CRD420251156834.
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.