8. Results of univariate meta‐regression for all‐cause hospitalisation.
| Explanatory variable (n trials) | Exp (slope)* | 95% confidence interval, P value |
Proportion of variance explained (adjusted R2) |
Interpretation |
| Case mix (% MI patients) (n = 23) | RR = 1.00 | 1.00 to 1.01, P = 0.71 | ‐20.91% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with case mix |
| Dose of exercise (number of weeks of exercise training x average number of sessions/week x average min/session) (n = 19) | RR = 1.00 | 1.00 to 1.00, P = 0.44 | ‐69.78% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with dose of exercise |
| Duration of follow‐up (months) (n = 23) | RR = 1.01 | 1.00 to 1.01, P = 0.07 | 56.52% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with length of follow‐up |
| Type of CR (exercise only vs comprehensive CR) (n = 23) | RR = 0.93 | 0.65 to 1.33, P = 0.70 | ‐50.20% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with type of CR |
| Year of publication (pre‐1995 vs post‐1995) (n = 23) | RR = 1.12 | 0.80 to 1.57, P = 0.48 | ‐32.69% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with publication year |
| Setting (centre vs home) (n = 23) | RR = 0.94 | 0.83 to 1.06, P = 0.28 | ‐36.70% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with setting of CR |
| Risk of bias (low risk in ≤ 3 items vs > 3 items) (n = 23) | RR = 1.00 | 0.71 to 1.40, P = 0.99 | ‐44.14% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with risk of bias |
| Study location (continent ‐ Europe, North America, Australia/Asia or Other) (n = 23) | RR = 0.86 | 0.69 to 1.08, P = 0.18 | ‐137.18% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with study location |
| Low‐ and middle‐income country (LMIC) vs high income country (n = 23) | RR = 1.06 | 0.72 to 1.55, P = 0.76 | ‐49.12% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with LMIC |
| Sample size (≤ 150 vs > 150) (n = 19) | RR = 1.45 | 1.08 to 1.96, P = 0.02 | 100% | No evidence that risk ratio is associated with study sample size |