Economic evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation is an important tool in the evaluation of competing healthcare interventions. Little is known about the economic benefits of different cardiac rehabilitation program delivery models. DESIGN: The goal of this study was to review and evaluate the methodological quality of published economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation services. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for English language evaluations (trials, modeling studies) of the economic impact of cardiac rehabilitation. A review of study characteristics and methodological quality was completed using standardized tools. All costs are adjusted to 2004 US dollars. RESULTS: Fifteen economic evaluations were identified which met eligibility criteria but which displayed wide variation in the use of comparators, evaluation type, perspective and design. Evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of supervised cardiac rehabilitation in myocardial infarction and heart failure patients was identified. The range of cost per life year gained was estimated as from 2193 dollars to 28,193 dollars and from - 668 dollars to 16,118 dollars per quality adjusted life year gained. The level of evidence supporting the economic value of home-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions is limited to partial economic analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of supervised cardiac rehabilitation compared with usual care in myocardial infarction and heart failure was identified. Further trials are required to support the cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac patients who have under gone revascularization. The literature evaluating home-based and alternative delivery models of cardiac rehabilitation was insufficient to draw conclusions about their relative cost-effectiveness. The overall quality of published economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation is poor and further well-designed trials are required.
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 | 0.037 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".