Why the study?
Clinicians lack evidence on which exercise training modality is most effective for coronary artery disease patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Population
Patients with coronary artery disease undergoing cardiac rehabilitation
Comparison
Different doses and modalities of exercise training interventions
Design
Protocol for a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Guides clinicians on optimal exercise dosing for CAD rehab capacity gains; extends RCT evidence via direct regimen comparisons.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in these patients, and yet clinicians are often challenged to prescribe the most effective type of exercise training. Therefore, this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to formally quantify the optimal dose of exercise training interventions to improve exercise capacity and quality of life by undertaking direct and indirect pooled comparisons of randomized controlled trials. A detailed search will be conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), EMBASE and Web of Science. Two reviewers will screen the existing literature and assess the quality of the studies. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus. We anticipate that the analysis will include pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Most of the trials have studied the impact of exercise training comparing one or two modalities. As a result, little evidence exists to support which interventions will be most effective. The current NMA will address this gap in the literature and assist clinicians and cardiac rehabilitation specialists in making an informed decision. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals. Ethical approval is not applicable, as no research participants will be involved. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42022262644.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shah et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: