The Effects of Cardiac Rehabilitation on Mortality and Morbidity in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with significant reductions in mortality and morbidity, but few women are included in trials. Therefore, a meta-analysis of the effects of CR in women is warranted. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials from recent systematic reviews that included women attending comprehensive CR and reporting the outcomes of mortality and morbidity (hospitalization, myocardial infarction, bypass surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention) were considered for inclusion. An updated search of the literature was performed from the end date of the last search, based on the Cochrane strategy. Authors were contacted to provide results on women where none were reported. RESULTS: On the basis of 2 recent systematic reviews, 80 trials were identified. Fifty (62.5%) were excluded, most commonly due to lack of inclusion of women (n = 18; 22.5%). One trial was identified through the search update. Of 31 potential trials meeting inclusion criteria, 1 reported results on women and many were old, and hence data by sex were no longer available. Ultimately, data for women were available in 2 trials. Therefore, it was deemed inappropriate to undertake this meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This review corroborates the dearth of data on CR in women despite the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women. Given the totality of evidence, including reductions in mortality and morbidity in nonrandomized studies, and evidence of benefit for other important outcomes such as functional capacity and quality of life, women should continue to be referred to CR.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".