ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Exercise modalities and dose-response for LVEF Improvement in heart failure patients: a systematic review and network 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effects of various exercise modalities and doses on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure. Methods: We systematically searched eight electronic databases through December 2025. Randomized controlled trials involving adult HF patients were eligible. Interventions comprised aerobic exercise (AE), resistance training (RT), combined exercise (CE), mind-body exercise (ME), high-intensity interval training (HIIT), and control. Random-effects network meta-analysis was employed to estimate mean differences with 95% credible intervals, and surface under the cumulative ranking curve probabilities were calculated. Nonlinear dose-response relationships were modeled using MET-minutes per week. Results: 42 RCTs comprising 3,519 participants were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that all exercise modalities significantly improved LVEF compared with control. Resistance training showed the largest treatment effect (MD: 9.9; 95% CrI: 6.5, 13.0), followed by HIIT (MD: 8.4; 95% CrI: 4.2, 12.0), CE (MD: 6.0; 95% CrI: 2.9, 9.0), and AE (MD: 5.2; 95% CrI: 3.3, 7.1). SUCRA rankings indicated RT had the highest probability of being optimal (93.1%), followed by HIIT (76.1%), ME (55.3%), CE (46.0%), and AE (29.5%). Dose-response analysis revealed a non-linear quadratic relationship between MET-minutes per week and LVEF improvement. The minimum effective dose was 280 MET-minutes/week, with the optimal dosage range of 500-800 MET-minutes/week. Modality-specific patterns emerged: RT produced benefits at low doses (220 MET-minutes/week; optimal 330-440), whereas HIIT required higher thresholds (440 MET-minutes/week; optimal 560-780). Evidence certainty ranged from very low to moderate across comparisons per CINeMA framework. Conclusions: Resistance training is the most effective exercise modality for improving LVEF in HF patients, particularly at low-to-moderate doses. These findings support a precision-based rehabilitation strategy centered on RT to optimize cardiac function. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD420261329239.
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.