Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with coronary heart disease, chronic heart failure and associated risk factors: A systematic review of economic evaluations of randomized clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Prescribed exercise is effective in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD), chronic heart failure (CHF), intermittent claudication, body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2, hypertension or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the evidence for its cost-effectiveness is limited, shows large variations and is partly contradictory. Using World Health Organization and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology value for money thresholds, we report the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy, exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. Methods Electronic databases were searched for incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental cost–utility ratios and/or the probability of cost-effectiveness of exercise prescribed as therapy in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1 July 2008 and 28 October 2018. Results Of 19 incremental cost–utility ratios reported in 15 RCTs in patients with CHD, CHF, intermittent claudication or BMI ≥25 kg/m2, 63% met both value for money thresholds as ‘highly cost-effective’ or ‘high value’, with 26% ‘not cost-effective’ or of ‘low value’. The probability of intervention cost-effectiveness ranged from 23 to 100%, probably due to the different populations, interventions and comparators reported in the individual RCTs. Confirmation with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting checklist varied widely across the included studies. Conclusions The findings of this review support the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with CHD, CHF, BMI ≥25 kg/m2 or intermittent claudication, but, with concerns about reporting standards, need further confirmation. No eligible economic evaluation based on RCTs was identified in patients with hypertension or T2DM.
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 | 0.034 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".