Key result
Technology-enabled remote cardiac rehab trials fail to fully report interventions, meeting a median 8 TIDieR categories.
Why the study?
For successful translation of technology-enabled remote cardiac rehabilitation into clinical practice, interventions must be adequately reported in the literature.
Is the reporting of technology-enabled remote or hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions in randomized trials complete according to the TIDieR checklist?
Systematic Review (n=1,588)
Is the reporting of technology-enabled remote or hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions in randomized trials complete according to the TIDieR checklist?
The quality of reporting for technology-enabled remote cardiac rehabilitation interventions in randomized trials is insufficient for replication, hindering translation into clinical practice.
Incomplete reporting of remote cardiac rehabilitation interventions limits replicability; challenges clinical translation and requires enhanced standards in future trials.
Background: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improves clinical outcomes and quality of life.Technology-enabled delivery of remote cardiac rehabilitation is as effective in improving health outcomes as in-person delivery and has the potential to transform clinical service delivery.However, for the successful translation of research to clinical practice, interventions must be adequately reported in the literature.Methods: Systematic review of MedLine, CINAHL, PubMed and SPORT Discus databases applying PRISMA guidance.Randomised controlled trials of remote or hybrid technology-enabled exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions were included.Completeness of reporting was evaluated against the TIDieR checklist.Results: The search strategy returned 162 articles which, following screening, resulted in 12 randomised trials being included containing data for 1588 participants.No trial fully reported their rehabilitation intervention as per the 12-item TIDieR checklist, with a median score of eight out of 12 categories.Notably, intervention detail, dosage and modification were comparatively poorly reported.Conclusion: Technology-enabled remotely delivered cardiac rehabilitation may be effective at improving cardiovascular fitness; however, the quality of reporting of these interventions in randomised trials is insufficient for replication which has material implications for translation into clinical practice.h IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Technology-enabled remotely delivered cardiac rehabilitation is effective at improving cardiovascular fitness, and thought to be equivalent to centre-based delivery. The quality of the reporting of these rehabilitation interventions as per the TIDieR checklist in randomised trials is, however, insufficient for replication of these studies or for uptake and 'roll-out' across clincial practice. Full reporting of rehabilitation interventions is essential to improve the translation of research evidence into clinical practice and the rehabilitation trial literature
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McGrath et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review in cardiac rehabilitation (n=1,588). technology-enabled remote or hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Completeness of reporting evaluated against the TIDieR checklist. No trial fully reported their technology-enabled remote cardiac rehabilitation intervention as per the 12-item TIDieR checklist, with a median score of 8 out of 12 categories.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: