Carson 1982.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Recruitment: men with MI who were admitted to CCU Allocation: not reported Blinding: not reported Randomisation: not reported Follow‐up(s): 3.5 years Description: supervised exercise programme (12 weeks, 2 x/week)
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention group Mean age (SD): 50.3 (0.65) Sex (male %): 100 Number of participants randomised: 151 Working before CHD: not reported Control group Mean age (SD): 52.8 (0.67) Sex (male %): 100 Number of participants randomised: 152 Working before CHD: not reported Inclusion criteria MI diagnosis based on ECG changes and/or elevation of SGOT or LD) taken on 3 consecutive days, and admitted to the CCU Exclusion criteria > 70 years of age Heart failure at follow‐up clinic Cardiothoracic ratio exceeding 59% Severe chronic obstructive lung disease Hypertension requiring treatment Diabetes requiring insulin Disabling angina during convalescence Orthopaedic or medical disorders likely to impede progress in the gym Personality disorders likely to render participant unsuitable for the course Baseline imbalances: ‐ Physically demanding work (i.e. white‐ vs blue‐collar): unknown Severity of CHD: severe (prevalence of angina reported)
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Exercise Circuit based training twice a week Isometric exercise was avoided Participants were advised to maintain their fitness by continuing with similar exercises or with other methods of their choice after course completion Duration of intervention: 12 weeks Providers: physician, physical educationalist Control group no training provided
Outcomes	Not enough information provided to be included in the meta‐analysis (number of study participants working before MI): Quote: "Eighty‐one per cent of both exercise and control groups who were working before MI returned to work after MI. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the mean time of return to work following MI (exercise 13 weeks, control 12 weeks)." Adverse events (mortality)
Identification	Sponsorship source: DHHS (Department of Health and Social Security) Country: UK Setting: single‐centre, outpatient (hospital gym) Possible conflicts of interest: no information provided Ethics committee approval: not reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “The 303 patients who accepted were then randomly allocated to an exercise group (151) and a control group (152).” No further information provided.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to the nature of the study, blinding of participants was not possible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	It is not clear how work status was assessed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	The study authors write, "eighty‐one per cent of both exercise and control groups who were working before MI returned to work after MI", but do not state at what within what time‐frame or at which rate they returned to work. Study follow‐ups were done at 5 months, 1, 2 and 3 years after the MI, but the loss‐to follow‐up is unclear. It is also unclear how many study participants were working prior to the MI.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to determine, no study protocol available
Other bias	Unclear risk	None identified