↓ Skip to main content

Internet-based interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
298 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Internet-based interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009386.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reena Devi, Sally J Singh, John Powell, Emily A Fulton, Ewemade Igbinedion, Karen Rees

Abstract

The Internet could provide a means of delivering secondary prevention programmes to people with coronary heart disease (CHD). To determine the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions targeting lifestyle changes and medicines management for the secondary prevention of CHD. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, in December 2014. We also searched six other databases in October 2014, and three trials registers in January 2015 together with reference checking and handsearching to identify additional studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating Internet-delivered secondary prevention interventions aimed at people with CHD. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed evidence quality using the GRADE approach and presented this in a 'Summary of findings' table. Eighteen trials met our inclusion criteria. Eleven studies are complete (1392 participants), and seven are ongoing. Of the completed studies, seven interventions are broad, targeting the lifestyle management of CHD, and four focused on physical activity promotion. The comparison group in trials was usual care (n = 6), minimal intervention (n = 3), or traditional cardiac rehabilitation (n = 2).We found no effects of Internet-based interventions for all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 1.63; participants = 895; studies = 6; low-quality evidence). There was only one case of cardiovascular mortality in a control group (participants = 895; studies = 6). No incidences of non-fatal re-infarction were reported across any of the studies. We found no effects for revascularisation (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; participants = 895; studies = 6; low-quality evidence).We found no effects for total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.28; participants = 439; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; participants = 437; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), or triglycerides (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.19; participants = 439; studies = 4; low-quality evidence). We did not pool the data for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol due to considerable heterogeneity. Two out of six trials measuring LDL cholesterol detected favourable intervention effects, and four trials reported no effects. Seven studies measured systolic and diastolic blood pressure; we did not pool the data due to substantial heterogeneity. For systolic blood pressure, two studies showed a reduction with the intervention, but the remaining studies showed no effect. For diastolic blood pressure, two studies showed a reduction with the intervention, one study showed an increase with the intervention, and the remaining four studies showed no effect.Five trials measured health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We could draw no conclusions from one study due to incomplete reporting; one trial reported no effect; two studies reported a short- and medium-term effect respectively; and one study reported both short- and medium-term effects.Five trials assessed dietary outcomes: two reported favourable effects, and three reported no effects. Eight studies assessed physical activity: five of these trials reported no physical activity effects, and three reported effectiveness. Trials are yet to measure the impact of these interventions on compliance with medication.Two studies measured healthcare utilisation: one reported no effects, and the other reported increased usage of healthcare services compared to a control group in the intervention group at nine months' follow-up. Two trials collected cost data: both reported that Internet-delivered interventions are likely to be cost-effective.In terms of the risk of bias, the majority of studies reported appropriate randomisation and appropriate concealment of randomisation processes. A lack of blinding resulted in a risk of performance bias in seven studies, and a risk of detection bias in five trials. Two trials were at risk of attrition bias, and five were at risk for reporting bias. In general, evidence was of low quality due to lack of blinding, loss to follow-up, and uncertainty around the effect size. Few studies measured clinical events, and of those that did, a very small number of events were reported, and therefore no firm conclusions can be made. Similarly, there was no clear evidence of effect for cardiovascular risk factors, although again the number of studies reporting these was small. There was some evidence for beneficial effects on HRQOL, dietary outcomes, and physical activity, although firm conclusions cannot yet be made. The effects on healthcare utilisation and cost-effectiveness are also inconclusive, and trials are yet to measure the impact of Internet interventions on compliance with medication. The comparison groups differed across trials, and there were insufficient studies with usable data for subgroup analyses. We intend to study the intensity of comparison groups in future updates of this review when more evidence is available. The completion of the ongoing trials will add to the evidence base.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Unknown 295 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 16%
Student > Master 42 14%
Researcher 41 14%
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Student > Postgraduate 18 6%
Other 65 22%
Unknown 49 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 17%
Psychology 30 10%
Social Sciences 22 7%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Other 45 15%
Unknown 64 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,073,873
of 14,568,551 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,721
of 11,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,155
of 363,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#114
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,568,551 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 363,816 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.