Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 14;2019(3):CD010748. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010748.pub2

Geissler 1979.

Methods Study design: parallel RCT
Recruitment: MI patients surviving the first phase of rehabilitation (in‐hospital treatment) in one East German district; June 1973‐June 1975
Allocation: not reported
Blinding: not reported
Randomisation: cluster‐randomisation according to hospital region
Follow‐up(s): 6 months, 12 months, 2 years
Description: combined rehabilitation with an inpatient and outpatient phase
Participants Baseline characteristics
Intervention group
  • Mean age (SD): ‐

  • Sex (male %): 100

  • Number of participants: 161

  • Working before CHD: 146


Control group
  • Mean age (SD): not reported

  • Sex (male %): 100

  • Number of participants: 166

  • Working before CHD: 148


Inclusion criteria < 70 years of age at the time of the MI
Exclusion criteria
Baseline imbalances:
Physically demanding work (i.e. white vs. blue collar): unknown
Severity of CHD: unknown
Interventions Intervention characteristics
Inpatient (Phase II) and outpatient (Phase III) rehabilitation:
  • Phase II: inpatient rehabilitation centre

    • Daily endurance training: 30 min on bicycle ergometer, terrain training, gymnastic exercises

    • Up to 80%‐90% the maximal symptom‐limited workload limit (monitored with pulse frequency)

    • RTW possibilities discussed upon completion

  • Phase III: outpatient rehabilitation:

    • 50 min of supervised training 2 x/week in gym or indoor swimming pool

    • 30 min daily unsupervised training with home programme

  • Duration of intervention:

    • Phase II 3 months

    • Phase III 6 months (not clearly described)

  • Providers: phase III training supervised by physical education specialist


Control group
  • Usual care through general practitioner upon hospital discharge (i.e. after phase I)

Outcomes Proportion at work at 6 months–12 months (medium term): 12 months
Proportion at work at > 12 months to < 5 years (long term): 2 years
Adverse events (cardiac deaths, reinfarctions)
Identification Sponsorship source: no information provided
Country: Former East Germany (GDR)
Setting: inpatient and outpatient
Possible conflicts of interest: not reported
Ethics committee approval: not reported
Notes The number of people working before MI is not explicitly reported, but RTW is reported for all men aged < 65 years. Due to the sociopolitical policies in place at the time of this study, presumed that all of the participants presented in the RTW table were working prior to their heart attack.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk The study authors write that "regional cluster randomisation" was used. No further description of the randomisation method was reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No method of allocation concealment was reported.
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 No outcome assessor blinding was reported, nor is it reported how RTW was assessed.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Only 2 participants from the control group refused the 2‐year follow‐up and the participants' 2‐year survival was similar in both groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Unable to determine, no study protocol available
Other bias Unclear risk Additional sources of bias from cluster‐RCT:
  • Recruitment bias: low risk ‐ no recruiting after “regional” randomisation reported

  • Baseline imbalance: high risk ‐ no baseline population characteristic within clusters reported

  • Loss of clusters: low risk ‐ no cluster loss reported; individual losses equal (13%:15%) and reasons described

  • Incorrect analysis: unclear risk ‐ no standard errors, P values or meta‐analysis calculated; unable to combine with other studies due to lack of cluster information

  • Comparability with individually randomised trials: unclear risk ‐ results similar to those of individually randomised studies; however, 'herd effect' is possible if people in a region are all invited to take part in rehabilitation and RTW.