Effectiveness of alternative vs traditional exercises on cardiac rehabilitation program utilization in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review will evaluate the effectiveness of alternative vs traditional forms of exercise on cardiac rehabilitation program utilization and other outcomes in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease. INTRODUCTION: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programs improve health outcomes in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease. However, such programs are underutilized worldwide, particularly among women. Some women perceive traditional gym-based exercise in cardiac rehabilitation programs (eg, typically treadmills, cycle ergometers, traditional resistance training) to be excessively rigorous and unpleasant, resulting in diminished participation and completion. Alternative forms of exercise such as yoga, tai chi, qi gong, or Pilates may be more enjoyable and motivating exercise options for women, enhancing engagement in rehabilitation programs. However, the effectiveness of these alternative exercises in improving program utilization is still inconsistent and needs to be systematically evaluated and synthesized. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will focus on randomized controlled trials of studies measuring the effectiveness of alternative vs traditional forms of exercise on cardiac rehabilitation program utilization as well as clinical, physiological, or patient-reported outcomes in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, and PsycINFO (Ovid) will be searched. Two independent reviewers will screen articles and then extract and synthesize data. Methodological quality will be assessed using JBI's standardized instruments. GRADE will be used to determine the certainty of evidence. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022354996.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".