Cochrane · systematic review · CD007130
Home‐based versus centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation
McDonagh, STJ, Dalal, H, Moore, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 50%Moderate 2 · 50%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyHome‐based versus centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation for heart disease
Population: Patients with heart disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total mortality Number of deaths Home‐based vs centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation | RR 1.19 [0.65, 2.16] | 12 studies · 1647 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Exercise capacity ≤ 12 months* Home‐based vs centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation | no estimate extracted | 24 studies · 2343 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Withdrawal from the exercise programme Number of completers (participants with data at Home‐based vs centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation | RR 1.04 [0.99, 1.08] | 23 studies · 2638 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
HRQoLValidated measures of HRQoL (e.g. Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36), Sickness Impact Profile, Nottingham Health Profile) Home‐based vs centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation | no estimate extracted | 18 studies · 2207 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Home‐based versus supervised centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation for heart disease
Population: Patients with heart disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total mortality Number of deaths Home‐based vs supervised centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation | RR 1.19 [0.65, 2.16] | 11 studies · 1505 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Exercise capacity ≤ 12 months Validated outcome measure (e.g. VO₂ peak, 6 minute walk test) Home‐based vs supervised centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation | no estimate extracted | 22 studies · 2255 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Withdrawal from the intervention group Number of completers (participants with data at Home‐based vs supervised centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation | RR 1.04 [1, 1.08] | 22 studies · 2615 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
HRQoL Validated measures of HRQoL (e.g. Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36), Sickness Impact Profile, Nottingham Health Profile) Home‐based vs supervised centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation | no estimate extracted | 14 studies · 2079 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |