Key result
Systematic review protocol evaluates cardiac rehabilitation versus standard care for cardiovascular outcomes in women.
Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation is an established secondary prevention strategy after cardiovascular events, but services remain underutilized among women, leaving limited knowledge of secondary cardiovascular outcomes and quality of life in this population.
Does structured cardiac rehabilitation improve secondary cardiovascular health outcomes and quality of life compared to standard care alone in adult females with a history of cardiovascular events?
Systematic Review
Does structured cardiac rehabilitation improve secondary cardiovascular health outcomes and quality of life compared to standard care alone in adult females with a history of cardiovascular events?
This systematic review protocol outlines the methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation versus standard care on secondary cardiovascular outcomes and quality of life specifically in women, addressing a known evidence gap due to underutilization.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Protocol targets evidence gap for women; leaves open whether cardiac rehabilitation improves outcomes versus standard care.
OBJECTIVE: This review will evaluate the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) versus standard care alone on secondary cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes and quality of life (QoL) measures in adult females with a history of CV events. INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) negatively affects patients' QoL and is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. CR is an established and cost-effective secondary prevention strategy for patients with CVD. CR programming enhances recovery after cardiovascular events through risk-factor reduction. Despite this, CR services remain underutilized, particularly among women, resulting in limited knowledge of secondary-CV outcomes. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible articles will include females aged 18 years and over, with a CR-eligible diagnosis, who have completed a structured CR program, regardless of delivery method. Studies with a minimum follow-up time of 3 months reporting major adverse CV events, all-cause mortality, functional capacity, CV-related hospitalizations, and QoL data will be included. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL will be searched to identify relevant articles. Gray literature will be searched for using Google Scholar, trial registries, and conference proceedings indexed in Web of Science. Studies can be in any language, must contain sex-specific data, and must be published with data collected after January 2008. Once retrieved, studies will be screened by 2 independent reviewers. After screening, eligible studies will be critically appraised by 2 reviewers, followed by data extraction and synthesis. Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analysis. Assessment of certainty will be presented using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Summary of Findings approach. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251112767.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harry et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in Adult females with a history of cardiovascular events and a cardiac rehabilitation-eligible diagnosis. Structured cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program vs. Standard care alone was evaluated on Secondary cardiovascular health outcomes (major adverse CV events, all-cause mortality, functional capacity, CV-related hospitalizations) and quality of life (QoL) measures. Cardiac rehabilitation versus standard care in women will be evaluated in this systematic review protocol (≥3 months follow-up; no results reported yet).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: