ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Development and validation of a multidimensional tool for baseline functional phenotyping in cardiac rehabilitation.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFunctional recovery after cardiac events is heterogeneous, with up to 40% of patients showing limited improvement despite standardized rehabilitation. Current assessment tools demonstrate modest accuracy (~ 61%) and rarely capture the multidimensional aspects of functional status. This study aimed to develop and internally validate a pragmatic bedside functional stratification tool for patients entering cardiac rehabilitation.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of 80 patients (mean age 72.7 ± 5.2 years, 65% male) at rehabilitation intake. Four routinely available parameters were assessed: age, six-minute walk test (6MWT), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS). Each was categorized into four levels (0–3 points), yielding a composite score of 0–12. Patients were stratified as Low (0–3), Moderate (4–6), High (7–9), or Very High (10–12) functional impairment. Internal validation employed bootstrap resampling (n = 1000).
resultsFunctional capacity declined progressively across categories: 6MWT decreased from 364.3 ± 75.7 m (Low Impairment) to 185.2 ± 32.9 m (Very High Impairment), and TUG increased from 6.9 ± 1.0 s to 14.2 ± 2.8 s (all p < 0.001). The composite score correlated strongly with functional performance (r = − 0.75, p < 0.001) and demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–0.97), outperforming individual measures. Bootstrap validation confirmed stability.
conclusionsWe propose a simple, multidomain bedside score requiring ~ 25 min and no specialized equipment. This tool enables functional stratification at rehabilitation intake, supports personalized care, and facilitates matching rehabilitation pathways to baseline functional status. External validation is warranted.
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.