Evidence summary for exercise therapy programs in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To retrieve, appraise and integrate available evidence on exercise therapy programs in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and summarize the best evidence. Methods Databases including BMJ BestPractice, UpToData, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, JBI, Guidelines International Network(GIN), Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario(RNAO), American Heart Association(AHA), European Society of Cardiology(ESC), Chinese Medlive Guidelines Network, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, CBM were searched to collect all articles on exercise regimens for patients after PCI, including guidelines, systematic reviews, evidence summaries, recommended practice, expert consensuses and high-quality randomized controlled studies. The retrieval period was from the inception to December 2020. JBI evidence appraisal and recommendation system was used to evaluate quality of studies and level of evidence. Results Totally 11 articles were selected, and a total of 29 items of best evidence were summarized from 7 aspects, including exercise health education, exercise assessment, exercise timing, exercise form, exercise intensity, exercise time and exercise monitoring. Conclusion This study summarized the best evidence of exercise programs after PCI, suggesting that clinical medical staff should pay attention to the management of exercise rehabilitation of patients after PCI, and develop safe and standardized exercise programs for patients centering on health education, exercise evaluation, exercise timing, exercise form and other aspects in combination with patients' personal factors. (目的 检索、评价和整合经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)术后患者运动方案的相关证据, 并对最佳证据进行总结。方法 检索BMJ Best Practice、UpToDate、Cochrane Library、PubMed、Web of Science、CINAHL、EMBASE、Joanna Briggs Institute(JBI)循证卫生保健中心数据库、国际指南网(GIN)、加拿大安大略注册护士协会(RNAO)网站、美国心脏协会(AHA)网站、欧洲心脏学会(ESC)网站、中国医脉通指南网、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、万方数据库(Wanfang Data)、维普数据库(VIP)、中国生物医学文献服务系统(CBM)等数据库、指南网以及专业协会网站关于PCI术后患者运动方案的所有证据, 包括指南、系统评价、证据总结、推荐实践、专家共识及高质量的随机对照研究, 检索时限为建库至2020年12月。采用澳大利亚JBI循证卫生保健中心的文献评价标准和证据分级系统, 对不同类型研究进行文献质量评价及证据级别评定。结果 共纳入文献11篇, 从PCI术后患者运动健康教育、运动评估、运动时机、运动形式、运动强度、运动时间和运动监测7个方面汇总29条最佳证据。结论 本研究总结了有关PCI术后运动方案的最佳证据, 建议临床医护人员应重视PCI术后患者运动康复的管理, 结合患者的个人因素, 围绕运动健康教育、运动评估、运动时机、运动形式等内容为患者制定安全性、规范化的运动方案。)
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 | 0.014 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".