Pfund 2001.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Recruitment: continuously employed patients (≤ 60 years) after successful coronary catheter revascularisation; March1998‐December 1999 Allocation: not reported Blinding: not reported Randomisation: no method described Follow‐up(s): 4 months Description: intervention group received a RTW consultation regarding RTW including a proposed date for RTW in the 1st week after the intervention
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention group Mean age (SD): 53 ± 5 Sex (male %): ‐ Number of participants randomised: 48 Working before CHD: 48 Control group Mean age (SD): 52 ± 7 Sex (male %): ‐ Number of participants randomised: 52 Working before CHD: 52 Inclusion criteria Successful coronary catheter revascularisation Working patients Exclusion criteria MI in the last 4 weeks Medical contraindications: unstable angina pectoris cardiac insufficiency (ejection fraction < 50%) haemodynamically relevant valvular defect severe co‐morbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tumours, apoplexy etc.) Planned retirement Housewives (difficulties to specify when their working day begins) Baseline imbalances: ‐ Recruitment Methods: Physically demanding work: unknown Severity of CHD: less severe
Interventions	Intervention characteristics RTW consultation Participants and their family doctors were provided with information about RTW Participants were verbally briefed by the investigator and the clinic to acquire general information about RTW Family doctor received information via medical reports Information session for all participants and their family doctors during the 1st week Control‐and‐workload ECG test (if there was an ischaemia or a clinically suspected restenosis found, there was another ECG appointment) Duration of intervention: not reported Providers: study investigator, physician, family doctor Control group No specific information about RTW
Outcomes	Proportion at work at < 6 months (short term): 4 months Duration of sick leave EuroQOL (only baseline reported)
Identification	Sponsorship source: Ernst und Berta‐Grimmke‐Stiftung, Düsseldorf Country: Germany Setting: multi‐centred: medical clinic III of the University of Cologne and the joint practice Haubrichhof, Cologne; 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)	Unclear risk	The method of sequence generation is not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No method of allocation concealment is described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding of the study participants was not mentioned. The hospital personnel and study researchers would have been aware of the group allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No blinding of outcome assessors is mentioned, and RTW was assessed with an interview. No additional checks of work status with external sources is mentioned.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "Overall there were 104 patients included in the study (intention‐to‐treat) of which 100 (96%) were interviewed after 4 months." Unclear what happened to the 4 dropouts and how they were allocated
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No study protocol was available. Although the intervention did not result in a statistically significant difference in short‐term (4‐month) RTW rates, the results were reported. However, the statistically significant differences between RTW among private vs pubically insured participants (which did not directly address the study aims) are overemphasised
Other bias	Unclear risk	None identified