Systematic review of cardiac rehabilitation guidelines: Quality and scope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation is a comprehensive model of secondary prevention proven to reduce mortality and morbidity. The World Health Organization is developing a Package of Rehabilitation Interventions for implementation by ministries of health as part of universal healthcare across the continuum. Through a systematic review, we sought to identify the best-quality cardiac rehabilitation guidelines, and extract their recommendations for implementation by member states. A systematic search was undertaken of academic databases and guideline repositories, among other sources, through to April 2019, for English-language cardiac rehabilitation guidelines from the last 10 years, free from conflicts, and with strength of recommendations. Two authors independently considered all citations. Potentially eligible guidelines were rated for quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool, and for other characteristics such as being multi-professional, comprehensive and international in perspective; the latter criteria were used to inform selection of 3-5 guidelines meeting inclusion criteria. Equity considerations were also extracted. Altogether, 2076 unique citations were identified. Thirteen passed title and abstract screening, with six guidelines potentially eligible for inclusion in the Package of Rehabilitation Interventions and rated for quality; for two guidelines the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool ratings did not meet World Health Organization minimums. Of the four eligible guidelines, three were selected: the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (2016), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (#172; 2013) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (#150; 2017). Extracted recommendations were comprehensive, but psychosocial recommendations were contradictory and diet recommendations were inconsistent. A development group of the World Health Organization will review and refine the recommendations which will then undergo peer review, before open source dissemination for implementation.
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 | 0.100 | 0.474 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".