ReviewJournal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention2026
A Contemporary Review of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: CLINICAL CARE, CARDIAC REHABILITATION, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS.
Review in Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention, 2026. 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
purposeSpontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) has emerged as an important cause of acute coronary syndrome predominantly affecting women. Although the knowledge of SCAD has expanded over the past 2 decades, limited evidence exists to guide post-event management and prevention of future adverse events. This review aims to synthesize the current understanding of SCAD and outline considerations for exercise prescription and cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in this unique population. REVIEW
methodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted, incorporating original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and current clinical guidelines related to SCAD and CR. SUMMARY: Current literature demonstrates that CR is safe in this population and is associated with improvement in measures of physical and mental health. Expert consensus supports reintroduction of exercise and an individualized multidisciplinary CR framework.This review highlights current evidence and expert recommendations for the multidisciplinary outpatient management of patients with SCAD.
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.