ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Effectiveness and selection of exercise prescriptions for myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Exercise intervention has garnered significant attention for its potential to promote recovery and improve outcomes in myocardial infarction (MI) patients. However, controversy persists regarding the efficacy of exercise prescriptions in related studies. Therefore, this research aims to analyze the effects of exercise prescriptions during MI rehabilitation and associated influencing factors through systematic review and meta-analysis, thereby providing guidance for exercise prescription selection in MI patients. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by retrieving data from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases between January 2015 and June 2025. Only meta-analyses using random-effects models for cardiac function were included in the study. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on exercise type, intensity, session duration, frequency, and intervention duration. Results: A total of 42 studies were included. The results showed that exercise intervention significantly improves cardiac function, exercise performance, and quality of life in MI patients, while significantly reducing the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. A subgroup analysis of 26 cardiac function studies revealed that variations in exercise type, intensity, frequency, session duration, and intervention duration all exerted modulatory effects on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) levels in MI patients. However, the certainty of evidence related to LVEF is generally low, and the pooled effect is mainly influenced by non-randomized studies with high risk of bias. Furthermore, the evidence is subject to inconsistency and/or imprecision, leading to a potential low or very low certainty in conclusions. Conclusion: Current findings indicate that moderate-intensity aerobic or resistance training, with each session lasting < 30 min, < 3 times per week, and an intervention duration > 16 weeks, is more beneficial for the rehabilitation of MI patients. The clinical research on resistance training is currently insufficient, and some studies have a high risk of bias. Additionally, there is considerable heterogeneity in the heart function intervention methods (e.g., type, session duration, frequency, intensity, and intervention duration), which could potentially influence the research outcomes. Therefore, more high-quality studies are needed in the future to validate these findings and provide more reliable scientific evidence for optimizing rehabilitation strategies for MI patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251085069, PROSPERO CRD420251085069.
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.