Leicht 2011.

Methods	Study design: RCT Method of randomisation: (info from study author) Consecutive IC patients were randomly allocated to each group via sealed envelopes that were developed by a researcher not associated with the study. Exclusions post randomisation: nil stated Losses to follow‐up: described in detail in CONSORT chart (Leicht 2011)
Participants	Country: Australia Setting: local hospital and university centre No. of participants: 25 PAD, 24 healthy age‐matched controls Age: 66.9 years (± 8 years) Sex: 14 male (56%) Inclusion criteria: PAD was confirmed based on absence of lower limb peripheral pulses, lower limb artery stenosis, or occlusion on duplex or computed tomographic angiography, and ankle brachial index (ABI) < 0.94. Exclusion criteria: inability to attend potential regular supervised exercise (n = 48), selected for surgical or endovascular intervention (n = 30), declined (n = 20), other medical condition influencing gait (n = 20), exhibited significant ectopy at rest (n = 3)
Interventions	• Conservative medical treatment (n = 13) • Supervised exercise (n = 12) consisted of treadmill walking 3 days per week for 25 to 40 minutes per day at a workload that induced intense to maximal claudication pain. Control: healthy age‐matched controls (n = 24) Duration: 12 months
Outcomes	Primary: to compare heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with IC and in age‐matched healthy adults Secondary: to examine the influence of an intense long‐term (12‐month) exercise programme on HRV in patients with IC PFWD, MWD, ABI
Notes	Treadmill test: 3.2 km/h and incline of 0%. The incline increased by 2% every 2 minutes until voluntary exhaustion or a maximum time of 25 minutes.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomised, consecutive IC patients were randomly allocated to each group via sealed envelopes that were developed by a researcher not associated with the study.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Consecutive IC patients were randomly allocated to each group via sealed envelopes that were developed by a researcher not associated with the study.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcome data reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Small numbers