MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317815224 · doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad005

Cardiac rehabilitation, physical activity, and the effectiveness of activity monitoring devices on cardiovascular patients: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

2023· review· en· W4317815224 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hila Ariela Dafny, Stephanie Champion, Lemlem G. Gebremichael, Vincent Pearson, Jeroen Hendriks, Robyn Clark, Maria Alejandra Pinero de Plaza, Aarti Gulyani, Sonia Hines, Alline Beleigoli

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFlinders UniversityCaring Futures Institute, Flinders UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical activityMedicineSystematic reviewPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To consolidate the evidence on the effectiveness of activity-monitoring devices and mobile applications on physical activity and health outcomes of patients with cardiovascular disease who attended cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes. METHODS AND RESULTS: An umbrella review of published randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses was conducted. Nine databases were searched from inception to 9 February 2022. Search and data extraction followed the JBI methodology for umbrella reviews and PRISMA guidelines. Nine systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, comparing outcomes of participants in CR programmes utilizing devices/applications, to patients without access to CR with devices/applications. A wide range of physical, clinical, and behavioural outcomes were reported, with results from 18 712 participants. Meta-analyses reported improvements in physical activity, minutes/week [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.35] and activity levels (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07-0.51), and a reduction in sedentariness [risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.39-0.75] in CR participants, compared with usual care. Of clinical outcomes, the risk of re-hospitalization reduced significantly (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89), and there was reduction (non-significant) in mortality (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05-1.54). From the behavioural outcomes, reviews reported improvements in smoking behaviour (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67-1.13) and total diet quality intake (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94) among CR patients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of devices/applications was associated with increase in activity, healthy behaviours, and reductions in clinical indicators. Although most effect sizes indicate limited clinical benefits, the broad consistency of the narrative suggests devices/applications are effective at improving CR patients' outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.014
Bibliometrics0.0160.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.289
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical OutcomesSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207