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.
What are the effects of exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation in people with coronary heart disease?
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 moderate or low to moderate where GRADE has been performed and the intervention may be more effective/beneficial than the comparison for key outcomes.
Population: People with coronary heart disease ᵃ
Intervention: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation
Comparison: Usual care only
| Outcome | Effectiveness (BMJ rating)? | Confidence in evidence (GRADE)? |
|---|---|---|
Total mortality: follow-up 6-12 months, >12-36 months, and >3 years | No statistically significant difference | Moderate |
Cardiovascular mortality: follow-up 6-12 months | No statistically significant difference | Moderate |
Cardiovascular mortality: follow-up >12-36 months and >3 years | Favors intervention | Moderate |
Fatal and/or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI): follow-up 6-12 months and >12-36 months | No statistically significant difference | Low |
Fatal and/or nonfatal MI: follow-up >3 years | Favors intervention | Low |
Revascularization: coronary artery bypass graft: follow-up 6-12 months, >12-36 months, and >3 years | No statistically significant difference | Moderate |
Revascularization: percutaneous coronary intervention: follow-up 6-12 months, >12-36 months, and >3 years | No statistically significant difference | Moderate |
Hospital admissions: follow-up 6-12 months | Favors intervention | Low |
Hospital admissions: follow-up >12-36 months | No statistically significant difference | Low |
Health‐related quality of life: follow‐up 6-12 months | See note ᵇ | GRADE assessment not performed for this outcome |
Note ᵃ The Cochrane Clinical Answer (CCA) and the Cochrane review it is based upon note that the population consisted mainly of middle-aged men post-MI or revascularization, which may limit the generalizability of results particularly to women and higher-risk men (e.g., those with angina pectoris or major comorbidities). ᵇ Results reported narratively. In general, exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improved quality of life, but results could not be combined due to heterogeneity in outcome measures and reporting (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 glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockers during percutaneous coronary intervention?
- How do routine and selective invasive strategies compare for the treatment of unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction?
- What are the effects of exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation for people with coronary heart disease?
Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer