Table 1.

Summary of findings.

Outcomes	№ of Participants (Studies) Follow Up	Certainty of the Evidence (GRADE)	Relative Effect (95% CI)	Anticipated Absolute Effects * (95% CI)
				Risk with No Interventions to Promote Utilization of CR	Risk Difference WITH Interventions to Promote Utilization of CR
Enrolment	3096 (19 RCTs) – 11 weeks	⊕⊕⊝⊝LOW 1,2	RR 1.27 (1.13 to 1.42)	Study population
				406 per 1000	110 more per 1000 (53 more to 171 more)
Adherence	1654 (9 RCTs) – 18 weeks	⊕⊕⊝⊝LOW 1,2	-		SMD 0.38 SD higher (0.20 higher to 0.55 higher)
Completion	1565 (8 RCTs) – 24 weeks	⊕⊕⊕⊝MODERATE 2	RR 1.13 (1.02 to 1.25)	Study population
				649 per 1000	84 more per 1000 (13 more to 162 more)

* The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI—confidence interval; RCT—randomized controlled trial; RR—risk ratio; SD—standard deviation; SMD—standardized mean difference; CR—cardiac rehabilitation. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High certainty (4 ⊕): we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty (3 ⊕): we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: (1 ⊕) our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty (0 ⊕): we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. ¹ Heterogeneity suggests evidence of inconsistency, therefore quality of evidence downgraded by one level. ² The included studies consisted of primarily white male participants, therefore quality of evidence downgraded by one level for indirectness.