Prevention & lipidsMeta-analysis
Economic evaluation of alternative cardiac rehabilitation programmes compared to centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes: a systematic review
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
- random-effects models
Search to 20 March 2025; quality by Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Drummond 10-item checklist
Authors' conclusion
ACRPs demonstrate cost-effectiveness comparable to traditional CBCR.
Study context
- Population
- RCTs directly comparing ACRP with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) in terms of cost and effectiveness
- Participants
- 2,040 participants · 13 studies
- Comparison
- ACRP vs CBCR
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Quality of life (EQ-5D) and QALY
ACRP vs CBCRSMD (95% CI)
EQ-5D; I2 = 79%; non-significant trend favouring CBCR
−0.32(−0.71 to 0.06)
QALY; I2 = 0; no difference
−0.02(−0.19 to 0.15)
Original publication
Economic evaluation of alternative cardiac rehabilitation programmes compared to centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes: a systematic review. Eur J Prev Cardiol. Published 30 January 2026. doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwag072
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it