| Title |
Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation for Coronary Heart Disease Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.044 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lindsey Anderson, Neil Oldridge, David R. Thompson, Ann-Dorthe Zwisler, Karen Rees, Nicole Martin, Rod S. Taylor |
| Abstract |
Although recommended in guidelines for the management of coronary heart disease (CHD), concerns have been raised about the applicability of evidence from existing meta-analyses of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR). The goal of this study is to update the Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise-based CR for CHD. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index Expanded were searched to July 2014. Retrieved papers, systematic reviews, and trial registries were hand-searched. We included randomized controlled trials with at least 6 months of follow-up, comparing CR to no-exercise controls following myocardial infarction or revascularization, or with a diagnosis of angina pectoris or CHD defined by angiography. Two authors screened titles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Studies were pooled using random effects meta-analysis, and stratified analyses were undertaken to examine potential treatment effect modifiers. A total of 63 studies with 14,486 participants with median follow-up of 12 months were included. Overall, CR led to a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (relative risk: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.86) and the risk of hospital admissions (relative risk: 0.82; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 0.96). There was no significant effect on total mortality, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The majority of studies (14 of 20) showed higher levels of health-related quality of life in 1 or more domains following exercise-based CR compared with control subjects. This study confirms that exercise-based CR reduces cardiovascular mortality and provides important data showing reductions in hospital admissions and improvements in quality of life. These benefits appear to be consistent across patients and intervention types and were independent of study quality, setting, and publication date. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 291 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 59 | 20% |
| United States | 37 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 29 | 10% |
| Canada | 6 | 2% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 5 | 2% |
| Australia | 4 | 1% |
| Mexico | 3 | 1% |
| India | 3 | 1% |
| Chile | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 24 | 8% |
| Unknown | 119 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 196 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 49 | 17% |
| Scientists | 37 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 9 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,031 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1030 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 159 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 149 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 79 | 8% |
| Researcher | 74 | 7% |
| Other | 61 | 6% |
| Other | 190 | 18% |
| Unknown | 319 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 270 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 160 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 76 | 7% |
| Psychology | 40 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 2% |
| Other | 108 | 10% |
| Unknown | 360 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 316. 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 02 November 2023.
All research outputs
#109,108
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#246
of 17,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,677
of 405,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#2
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 405,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.