Sex Differences in Cardiac Rehabilitation Enrollment: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present systematic review and meta-analysis examines studies published in the past 10 years that described cardiac rehabilitation (CR) enrollment among women and men, to determine whether a significant sex difference persists despite the evidence supporting the benefits of CR to women as well as men. METHODS: Scopus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for peer-reviewed articles published from July 2000 to July 2011. Titles and abstracts were screened, and the 623 selected full-text articles were independently screened based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria (guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PRISMA) and assessed for quality using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement form. The meta-analysis was undertaken using Review Manager software. RESULTS: Twenty-six eligible observational studies reporting data for 297,719 participants (128,499 [43.2%] women) were included. On average, 45.0% of men and 38.5% of women enrolled in CR. In the pooled analysis, men were more likely to be enrolled in CR compared with women (female enrollment vs male enrollment odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.72; P < 0.00001). Heterogeneity was considered high (I(2) = 78%). In the subgroup analyses, systematic CR referral during inpatient tertiary care resulted in significantly greater enrollment among women than nonsystematic referral. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, rates of CR enrollment among women are significantly lower compared with men, with women being 36% less likely to enroll in a rehabilitation program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.065 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".