Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation is supported by overwhelming evidence from over 40 positive randomized controlled trials, despite controversy from a single negative trial.
Why the study?
Does cardiac rehabilitation reduce mortality in patients after myocardial infarction?
Does cardiac rehabilitation reduce mortality in patients after myocardial infarction?
This editorial strongly supports the efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation post-myocardial infarction, emphasizing the weight of over 40 positive RCTs against a single negative UK trial.
This piece highlights the strength of evidence in favour of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and postulates that the emperor is indeed well dressed. The reason why a single negative trial, in the UK, has caused such hullabaloo in the literature and clinical practice is examined against overwhelming evidence from over 40 positive randomised controlled trials. The lack of motivation to promote lifestyle change and the role of patients in determining outcome is also explored. To conclude, we set the scene for the final chapter of this story by outlining what needs to be done to answer the question about the real-world effectiveness of CR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lewin et al. (2013) conducted an editorial in myocardial infarction. Cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated. Cardiac rehabilitation is supported by overwhelming evidence from over 40 positive randomized controlled trials, despite controversy from a single negative trial.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: