6. Results of univariate meta‐regression analysis for CABG.

Explanatory variable (n trials)	Exp(slope)*	95% Confidence interval Univariate P value	Proportion of variation explained	Interpretation
Case mix (% MI patients) (n = 28)	RR = 1.009	1.000 to 1.018 P = 0.28	0%	No evidence that risk ratio is associated with case mix
Dose of exercise (dose =number of weeks of exercise training x average number of sessions/week x average duration of session in min) (n= 23)	RR = 1.000	1.000 to 1.000 P = 0.93	0%	No evidence that risk ratio is associated with increased dose of exercise
Type of CR (exercise only vs CR rehab) (n = 28)	RR = 1.027	0.659 to 1.600 P = 0.27	0%	No evidence that risk ratio is associated with type of CR
Duration of follow‐up (months) (n = 28)	RR = 0.999	0.991 to 1.007 P = 0.98	0%	No evidence of a change in risk ratio with longer follow‐up
Year of publication (pre 1995 vs post 1995) (n = 28)	RR = 0.997	0.979 to 1.016 P = 1.00	0%	No evidence that risk ratio is associated with year of publication
Setting (centre vs home) (n = 28)	RR = 1.090	0.876 to 1.357 P = 0.76	0%	No evidence that risk ratio is associated with setting
Risk of bias (low risk in ≥ 5 items v < 5 items) (n = 28)	RR = 0.981	0.882 to 1.091 P = 0.79	0%	No evidence that risk ratio is associated with risk of bias
Study location (n = 28)	RR = 1.199	0.819 to 1.754 P = 1.00	0%	No evidence that risk ratio is associated with study location
Sample size (n = 28)	RR = 1.000	1.000 to 1.001 P = 1.00	0%	No evidence that risk ratio is associated with sample size

P‐values adjusted for multiple testing