The role of complementary and alternative therapies in cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Presently, complementary and alternative medicine, including both therapies and herbal/oral supplements, is used globally. Few studies have examined the use of specific therapies, separate from herbal/oral supplements, in cardiac rehabilitation. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of current research evidence related to use of specific complementary and alternative medicine therapies in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, with a view to making recommendations for cardiac rehabilitation. DESIGN AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted using complementary and alternative medicine websites, Medline, Allied and Complementary Medicine, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, SportDiscus, Clinical Evidence, and Evidence-Based Practice to locate research-based scientific evidence related to the use of complementary and alternative medicine in cardiac rehabilitation. Search keywords included heart, cardiac, cardiovascular, coronary, myocardial and rehabilitation, combined with particular therapies. Herbal/oral supplements were not included in this evaluation. RESULTS: Some complementary and alternative medicine therapies may be useful to patients by themselves or coupled with traditional cardiac rehabilitation. Tai chi, as a complement to existing exercise interventions, can be utilized for low and intermediate risk patients. transcendental meditation may be used as a stress reduction technique. There was insufficient evidence found for the use of acupuncture or chelation therapy in cardiac rehabilitation or secondary prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Some complementary and alternative medicine therapies hold promise for patients in cardiac rehabilitation. Further research is essential, however, in all areas of complementary and alternative medicine to confirm its usefulness as an adjunct to cardiac rehabilitation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".