↓ Skip to main content

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010876.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirstine L Sibilitz, Selina K Berg, Lars H Tang, Signe S Risom, Christian Gluud, Jane Lindschou, Lars Kober, Christian Hassager, Rod S Taylor, Ann-Dorthe Zwisler

Abstract

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit heart valve surgery patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for the use of exercise-based intervention programmes following heart valve surgery. To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with no exercise training intervention, or treatment as usual, in adults following heart valve surgery. We considered programmes including exercise training with or without another intervention (such as a psycho-educational component). We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS (Bireme); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-S (CPCI-S) on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) on 23 March 2015. We handsearched Web of Science, bibliographies of systematic reviews and trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com, and The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). We included randomised clinical trials that investigated exercise-based interventions compared with no exercise intervention control. The trial participants comprised adults aged 18 years or older who had undergone heart valve surgery for heart valve disease (from any cause) and received either heart valve replacement, or heart valve repair. Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluation of bias risk domains. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity were assessed. Meta-analyses were undertaken using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. We sought to assess the risk of random errors with trial sequential analysis. We included two trials from 1987 and 2004 with a total 148 participants who have had heart valve surgery. Both trials had a high risk of bias.There was insufficient evidence at 3 to 6 months follow-up to judge the effect of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to no exercise on mortality (RR 4.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 90.78); participants = 104; studies = 1; quality of evidence: very low) and on serious adverse events (RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.62); participants = 148; studies = 2; quality of evidence: very low). Included trials did not report on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the secondary outcomes of New York Heart Association class, left ventricular ejection fraction and cost. We did find that, compared with control (no exercise), exercise-based rehabilitation may increase exercise capacity (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.13; participants = 140; studies = 2, quality of evidence: moderate). There was insufficient evidence at 12 months follow-up for the return to work outcome (RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.56); participants = 44; studies = 1; quality of evidence: low). Due to limited information, trial sequential analysis could not be performed as planned. Our findings suggest that exercise-based rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery, compared with no exercise, may improve exercise capacity. Due to a lack of evidence, we cannot evaluate the impact on other outcomes. Further high-quality randomised clinical trials are needed in order to assess the impact of exercise-based rehabilitation on patient-relevant outcomes, including mortality and quality of life.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
#956,101
of 12,680,099 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,109
of 10,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,556
of 264,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,680,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 264,802 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 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 58% of its contemporaries.