Methods	RCT parallel group
Participants	n = 15 patients in Home-based CR group; n = 14 pts in Centre-based CR group; diagnosis: heart failure; case mix: CHF class II or III NYHA with ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy; mean age 52 (SD 8.5); 76% male Inclusion: heart failure of >3 month duration Exclusion: valvular heart disease, exercise-induced cardiac arrhythmias, symptomatic myocardial ischemia within 3 months, taking beta-blockers
Interventions	Home-based CR (intervention): Exercise: Total duration: 12 weeks; frequency: 3 sessions/wk; duration: 45 mins/session (including warm-up, cool-down, recovery); intensity: up to 60% peak heart rate (RPE 1216); modality: walking; follow-up logs completed daily/returned biweekly. Weekly phone calls from staff monitoring adherence & progress, monthly phone calls from patients for control purposes Other: not reported Centre-based CR (control): Exercise: Total duration: 12 weeks; frequency: 3 sessions/wk; duration: 45 mins/session (including warm-up, cool-down, recovery); intensity: 60% peak heart rate; modality: walking on a treadmill. Supervised Other: not reported
Outcomes	(primary and secondary outcomes not distinguished) exercise capacity (ml/kg/min), resting BP systolic & diastolic BP, adherence, dropouts; additionally data on mortality obtained by personal contact
Follow up	12 weeks post randomisation
Subgroup analyses	No subgroups described or reported
Country & settings	Turkey, single centre
Notes	Additional data on mortality obtained by personal contact
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors’ judgement	Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation?	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment?	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding? All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data addressed? All outcomes	Low risk
Free of selective reporting?	Low risk	All outcomes described in the methods section are reported in the results
Groups balanced at baseline?	Low risk	“Among patients who completed the study, no differences in demographic characteristics were seen between the 2 study groups after randomization (p>0.05). ”
Intention to treat analysis?	High risk	ITT not reported
Groups received same intervention?	Low risk	“We chose lower intensity …training prescriptions in the HETG to avoid any adverse occurrences and also in the SETG to provide comparable training intensity levels between 2 groups. ”