| Title |
Efficacy of Different Types of Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation on Coronary Heart Disease: a Network Meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-018-4636-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tian-li Xia, Fang-yang Huang, Yong Peng, Bao-tao Huang, Xiao-bo Pu, Yong Yang, Hua Chai, Mao Chen |
| Abstract |
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been recognized as an essential component of the treatment for coronary heart disease (CHD). Determining the efficacy of modern alternative treatment methods is the key to developing exercise-based CR programs. Studies published through June 6, 2016, were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. English-language articles regarding the efficacy of different modes of CR in patients with CHD were included in this analysis. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data from the studies. According to the categories described by prior Cochrane reviews, exercise-based CR was classified into center-based CR, home-based CR, tele-based CR, and combined CR for this analysis. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, recurrent fatal and/or nonfatal myocardial infarction, recurrent cardiac artery bypass grafting, recurrent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and hospital readmissions. Sixty randomized clinical trials (n = 19,411) were included in the analysis. Network meta-analysis (NMA) demonstrated that only center-based CR significantly reduced all-cause mortality (center-based: RR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.64-0.90], p = 0.002) compared to usual care. Other modes of CR were not significantly different from usual care with regard to their ability to reduce mortality. Treatment ranking indicated that combined CR exhibited the highest probability (86.9%) of being the most effective mode, but this finding was not statistically significant due to the small sample size (combined: RR = 0.50 [95% CI 0.20-1.27], p = 0.146). Current evidence suggests that center-based CR is acceptable for patients with CHD. As home- and tele-based CR can save time, money, effort, and resources and may be preferred by patients, their efficacy should be investigated further in subsequent studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 27% |
| Australia | 2 | 18% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 140 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 16% |
| Unknown | 56 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 65 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 October 2020.
All research outputs
#4,184,346
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,744
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,883
of 341,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#46
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.