Maeder 1977.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Recruitment: participants hospitalised for AMI October 1971‐ December 1972 Allocation: not reported Blinding: not reported Randomisation: random numbers table Follow‐up(s): 12 months, 4 years Description: participants in the intervention group encouraged to move and walk more in the weeks post‐MI
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention group Mean age (SD): 58 years Sex (male %): 83.1 Number of participants randomised: 77 Working before CHD: 77 Control group Mean age (SD): 58 years Sex (male %): 84.4 Number of participants randomised: 77 Working before CHD: 77 Inclusion criteria < 70 years Hospitalised for AMI Exclusion criteria Deaths during the first 24 h Severe heart failure Cardiogenic shock Severe arrhythmias Severe and persistent chest pain Severe psychological disorders Other contraindications Baseline imbalances: higher frequency of anamnestic angina in the early mobilisation group Recruitment methods: all participants < 70 years hospitalised for AMI were included in the study. Physically demanding work: blue‐collar Severity of CHD: less severe
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Early mobilisation group Gradual mobilisation under medical supervision started 24‐48 h after admission Walking initiated in the beginning of the 2nd week (on average) Duration of intervention: not reported Providers: physiotherapist and supervised by a doctor Control group Usual care: including at least 3 weeks of strict bed rest, followed by progressive mobilisation
Outcomes	Proportion at work (part‐/full‐time) at 6 months–12 months (medium term): 12 months Proportion at work at > 12 months to < 5 years (long term): 4 years Mean sick leave duration in months Depression‐ transient and prolonged (clinical information from attending physician) Adverse events (mortality, non‐fatal reinfarctions)
Identification	Sponsorship source: not reported Country: Switzerland Setting: single centre: the Cantonal Hospital of Geneva; inpatient 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)	Low risk	Participants were randomised using “random number tables in serial subgroups of six”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No allocation method 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	None reported, and it is unclear how RTW was assessed.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	An ITT analysis was not conducted, and the study authors do not report if the attrition of study participants was evenly distributed across groups. Quantities of dropout cases (also in combination of the 2 studies) did not match with the combined numbers provided in the text.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to determine, no study protocol was available
Other bias	Unclear risk	None identified