Jónsdóttir 2006a

Methods	Parallel group RCT
Participants	N Randomised: 43 (exercise 21; control 22) Diagnosis (% of participants): Aetiology: ischaemic 79%; AF 12%; valvular 7%; hypertension 2% NYHA: Class II and III LVEF: exercise 41.5 (SD 13.6); control 40.6% (SD 13.7) Case mix: as above Age (yr): exercise 68 (SD 7); control 69 (SD 5) Male: 79% White: not reported Inclusion/exclusion criteria Inclusion: CHF diagnosis, on CHF medication, clinical symptoms of CHF, clinically stable > 3 months before study entrance, fulfil 1 of the following criteria: previous MI, hospitalised because of CHF, lung oedema and cardiac enlargement on X‐ray Exclusion: chronic obstructive lung disease, orthopaedic disabilities, psychiatric disabilities, cancer, senility and age > 80 yr
Interventions	Exercise:Total duration: 5 months Aerobic/resistance/mix: mix Frequency: 2 sessions/wk Duration: 45 min Intensity: not reported Modality: cycling, free weights and elastic rubber‐bands (Thera‐bands) Setting: hospital outpatients, supervised by physiotherapists Other: training group had 3 educational lectures, about nutrition, physical activity and relaxation in addition to the exercise programme
Outcomes	Rehospitalisation and mortality
Comparison	Usual medical care (continued their previous level of physical activity, which varied from performing little physical activity up to taking a daily walk outdoors)
Country and setting	Iceland Single centre
Follow‐up	12 and 28 months (after randomisation)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes described in methods reported in results
Intention‐to‐treat analysis?	Low risk	Although not reported as ITT analysis, groups did appear to be analysed according to original randomised allocation
Incomplete outcome data?	Low risk	No losses to follow‐up
Groups balanced at baseline?	Low risk	Table 2 of the publication suggests 2 groups are well balanced
Groups received same intervention?	Low risk	Yes, both groups appeared to receive same interventions apart from CR intervention