Why the study?
Cardiovascular diseases frequently lead to disability, but the current state of cardiovascular rehabilitation in Romania had not been systematically identified to inform national protocols and registries.
This systematic review highlights the lack of and imperative need for a National protocol for cardiovascular rehabilitation and a National electronic register for cardiovascular diseases in Romania.
May guide national CV rehabilitation planning in Romania; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Frequently, cardiovascular pathologies lead to disability states, affecting the patient’s life quality, having a great socio-economic influence on public health systems. In order to identify the current situation of cardiovascular rehabilitation in Romania, we set out to create a systematic literature review on this subject matter. Aim. We aimed at a structured National protocol for cardiovascular rehabilitation, as for a national electronic register for cardiovascular diseases. Methods. We fulfilled, for the above mentioned purpose, a systematic literature review of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) type. The data query has been achieved in June 2023 and updated in March 2025 using several keyword combinations/ phrases, searched contextually. For this selection, we took into account: open access articles, written in English, published in ISI indexed journals between 01.01.2018 – 31.12.2022, extendend until 31.12.2024. Results. Five eligible articles were identified and operated in order to achieve this systematic literature review. Discussion. Accordingly, we noticed that there is no National electronic register for cardiovascular pathology in Romania, nor a National protocol for cardiovascular rehabilitation – the need for this type of a programme being imperative. Conclusions. Consequently, based on our efforts and given the fact that we approached an insufficiently researched niche, we consider our paper to contribute to such an endeavor.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mandu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: