SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Efficacy of exercise intervention for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis examined the efficacy of exercise interventions for atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to Nov 2024. Patients were diagnosed with AF. The intervention group received exercise management. The control group received standard AF management. The outcomes were the Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36), heart rate at rest (HR), 6-min walk test (6MWT), peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak), and the changes in VO2 peak. The RCTs were evaluated according to the Cochrane risk bias tool.
resultsSixteen RCTs (593 and 556 participants in the exercise and control groups) were included. Regarding the SF-36, the exercise intervention did not improve the general health (WMD = 4.10, 95%CI: -3.17, 11.37, P = 0.269; I2 = 86.4%, Pheterogeneity<0.001), physical function (PF) (WMD = 7.50, 95%CI: -5.78, 22.77, P = 0.268; I2 = 98.8%, Pheterogeneity<0.001), and vitality (WMD = 4.45, 95%CI: -1.80, 10.69, P = 0.163; I2 = 80.0%, Pheterogeneity<0.001) scores. The exercise intervention did not improve the HR at rest (WMD=-1.71, 95%CI: -5.23, 1.82, P = 0.343; I2 = 61.6%, Pheterogeneity=0.016). The exercise intervention improved the 6MWT (WMD = 66.27, 95%CI: 16.49, 116.04, P = 0.009; I2 = 77.4%, Pheterogeneity=0.001), VO2 peak (WMD = 3.08, 95%CI: 0.88, 5.29, P = 0.006; I2 = 63.3%, Pheterogeneity=0.018) and changes in VO2 peak (WMD = 3.78, 95%CI: 2.16, 5.39, P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity=0.615) in patients with AF. No publication bias was observed. The sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were robust.
conclusionsIn patients with AF, an exercise intervention appears to improve the 6MWT and VO2 peak, but not resting HR and overall health-related quality of life. However, subgroup analyses indicated that exercise significantly improved the vitality (VT) subscore of the SF-36 in specific patient populations, suggesting benefits in certain clinical contexts. Future studies should prioritize head-to-head comparisons of exercise modalities across AF subtypes, standardized adherence monitoring, and longitudinal registry-linked designs to assess clinical progression and real-world applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.