SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026
Effects of Remote, Virtual, or Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Supported by mHealth in Patients With Heart Failure: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Structured exercise is a key component of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for patients with heart failure (HF), but access to center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) is often limited. Mobile health (mHealth) platforms enable remote, virtual, or hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (RVH-CR) delivery. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of structured, exercise-focused RVH-CR supported by mHealth compared with usual care or CBCR in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or in HF populations predominantly comprising patients with HFrEF. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL Complete from inception to April 27, 2026. Randomized controlled trials comparing mHealth-supported RVH-CR with usual care or CBCR were included. The primary outcome was exercise capacity, assessed by peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life and safety. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis stratified by comparator. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2, and evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Results: Eight randomized controlled trials with 1368 patients were included. In the CBCR comparison, mHealth-supported RVH-CR showed a statistically significant greater improvement in VO2 peak than CBCR (mean difference [MD] 0.82, 95% CI 0.06-1.57; P=.03), although this finding was based on a limited number of trials. Compared with usual care, mHealth-supported RVH-CR was associated with improved 6MWD (MD 22.99, 95% CI 1.15-44.82; P=.04). Single-trial estimates suggested improvements in VO2 peak (MD 2.50, 95% CI 0.88-4.12) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (standardized MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.17; P<.01) versus usual care. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. No intervention-related deaths or serious adverse events were reported, but sparse events and short follow-up limited conclusions regarding safety. Conclusions: The effects of structured RVH-CR supported by mHealth differed according to comparator type, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. Compared with usual care, mHealth-supported RVH-CR was associated with improved 6MWD. Compared with CBCR, mHealth-supported RVH-CR showed a significantly greater improvement in VO2 peak in a limited number of trials, but superiority, equivalence, or noninferiority to CBCR cannot be concluded. Because usual care and CBCR are clinically distinct comparators, no single overall effect across comparator types should be inferred. Future studies should assess long-term outcomes and standardize structured exercise protocols across RVH-CR models.
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.