Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation significantly improved the Physical Component Summary of health-related quality of life by a mean difference of 4.77 compared to control in patients with cardiovascular disease.
Why the study?
Does cardiac rehabilitation improve health-related quality of life in patients with cardiovascular disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=554)
Does cardiac rehabilitation improve health-related quality of life in patients with cardiovascular disease?
Mean Difference: 4.77 (95% CI 2.32–7.22)
p-value: p=0.0001
Cardiac rehabilitation significantly improves the physical component of health-related quality of life in patients with cardiovascular disease.
Supports routine cardiac rehabilitation referral in CVD; confirms and extends meta-analytic evidence for physical HRQoL gains.
The effective cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to examine the effects of CR on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with CVD. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, The Scientific Electronic Library Online, Google Scholar (from the earliest date available to September 2016) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of CR versus control on quality-of-life (HRQOL) in CVD. Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Six studies met the selection criteria (total 482: 261 CR and 221 control patients). The results suggested that CR compared with control had a positive impact on HRQOL. Global HRQOL Physical Component Summary (SF-PCS) standardized mean differences (4.77, 95%CI 2.32 to 7.22, p=0.0001) and Mental Component Summary (SF-MCS) score 2.65 (95%CI -3.96 to 9.27, n=294, p=0.43) improved in the CR group compared to the control group. Our results suggest that CR compared with control had a positive impact on HRQOL. CR enhances HRQOL in patients with CVD Larger RCTs are required to further investigate the effects of CR in patients with CVD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cho et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiovascular Disease (n=554). Cardiac rehabilitation vs. Control was evaluated on Global Health-Related Quality of Life Physical Component Summary (SF-PCS) (MD 4.77, 95% CI 2.32 to 7.22, p=0.0001). Cardiac rehabilitation significantly improved the Physical Component Summary of health-related quality of life by a mean difference of 4.77 compared to control in patients with cardiovascular disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: