Evidence
This page contains a snapshot of featured content which highlights evidence addressing key clinical questions including areas of uncertainty. Please see the main topic reference list for details of all sources underpinning this topic.
BMJ Best Practice evidence tables
Evidence tables provide easily navigated layers of evidence in the context of specific clinical questions, using GRADE and a BMJ Best Practice Effectiveness rating. Follow the links at the bottom of the table, which go to the related evidence score in the main topic text, providing additional context for the clinical question. Find out more about our evidence tables.
This table is a summary of the analysis reported in a Cochrane Clinical Answer that focuses on the above important clinical question.
Confidence in the evidence is very low or low where GRADE has been performed and there may be no difference in effectiveness between the intervention and comparison for key outcomes. However, this is uncertain and new evidence could change this in the future.
Population: Adults aged 51-73 years with coronary heart disease
Intervention: Patient education ᵃ
Comparison: Usual medical care (typically referral to an outpatient cardiologist, primary care physician, or both)
| Outcome | Effectiveness (BMJ rating)? | Confidence in evidence (GRADE)? |
|---|---|---|
Total mortality at the end of the follow-up period (median 18 months) | No statistically significant difference | Moderate |
Fatal and/or non‐fatal MI at the end of the follow-up period (median 33 months) | No statistically significant difference | Very Low |
Total revascularisations (including CABG and PCI) (median follow‐up 36 months) | No statistically significant difference | Very Low |
Cardiac hospitalisations (median follow‐up 12 months) | No statistically significant difference | Very Low |
All-cause withdrawal/drop‐out (median follow‐up 12 months) | No statistically significant difference | Low |
Quality of life (median follow‐up 12 months) | See note ᵇ | Moderate |
Note The Cochrane review which underpins this Cochrane Clinical Answer (CCA) notes that due to the limited quality and lack of certainty of the evidence, patient education should be used only as part of a comprehensive programme which includes exercise and psychological support, which reflects international guidance. ᵃ Education interventions varied in what was delivered, who delivered it, and the intensity and duration of the intervention. See the CCA for more details. ᵇ Results were inconsistent with most finding no difference although some favoured the intervention; a number of different scales were used to measure quality of life so results could not be meta-analysed and are therefore reported narratively. See the CCA for more details.
This evidence table is related to the following section/s:
Cochrane Clinical Answers
Cochrane Clinical Answers (CCAs) provide a readable, digestible, clinically focused entry point to rigorous research from Cochrane systematic reviews. They are designed to be actionable and to inform decision making at the point of care and have been added to relevant sections of the main Best Practice text.
- What are the effects of exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation for people with coronary heart disease?
- What are the effects of participating in exercise, psychological or educational rehabilitation regimens compared with no participation in people with coronary heart disease?
- What are the effects of patient education on management of coronary heart disease?
Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer