| Home‐based cardiac rehabilitation compared with centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation for heart disease |
|
Patient or population: people with heart disease
Settings:
Intervention: home‐based CR
Comparison: centre‐based CR |
| Outcomes |
Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) |
Relative effect
(95% CI) |
No of participants
(studies) |
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE) |
Comments |
| Assumed risk |
Corresponding risk |
| |
Centre‐based CR |
Home‐based CR |
|
|
|
|
|
Total mortality
Follow‐up: 3‐12 months |
Study population |
RR 0.79
(0.43 to 1.47) |
1166
(7 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2
|
‐ |
| 27 per 1000 |
22 per 1000
(12 to 40) |
|
| Moderate |
|
| ‐ |
‐ |
|
|
All‐cause withdrawal
Follow‐up: median 6 months |
Study population |
RR 1.04
(1.01 to 1.07) |
1984
(18 studies) |
⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1
|
‐ |
| 874 per 1000 |
909 per 1000
(883 to 936) |
|
| Moderate |
|
| ‐ |
‐ |
|
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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; CR: cardiac rehabilitation; RR: risk ratio. |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. |
|
1 Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly described; bias likely.
2 The 95% CIs include both no effect and appreciable benefit or harm (i.e. RR < 0.75 or > 1.25). |
