Aronov 2010.

Methods	Study design: Multicentre RCT (20 cities) Country: Russia Dates patients recruited: NR Maximum follow up: 1 year
Participants	Inclusion criteria: Patients 3 to 8 weeks after MI, unstable angina or reconstructive coronary arteries intervention. In some cases (at discretion of the researchers) patients with stable angina after hospital treatment with unconfirmed diagnosis of MI or unstable angina were included in the study. Exclusion criteria: none reported N Randomised: total: 392; intervention: 197; comparator: 195 Diagnosis (% of pts): Stable angina: intervention: 62.7; comparator: 77.7 Post MI: intervention: 78.4; comparator: 77.3 Unstable angina: intervention: 5.0; comparator: 10.9 (not mutually exclusive). Age (mean ± SD): intervention: 51.9 ± 7.2; comparator: 51.9 ± 7 Percentage male: intervention: 95.5; comparator: 91.7 Ethnicity: NR
Interventions	Intervention: Patients of the main group received moderate‐intensity PT (50‐60% of the performed capacity by bicycle ergometry (BE) test) 3 times per week with duration of exercises from 45 minutes to 1 hour for 1 year. Components: exercise only. Setting: NR Aerobic exercise: Modality: cycling. Length of session: 45‐60 mins. Frequency: 3 times a week. Intensity: 50‐60% of the performed capacity by bicycle ergometry test. Resistance training included? No. Total duration: 1 year. Co‐interventions: patients received standard medical therapy described below. Comparator: Patients received standard medical therapy which included beta‐blocker, acetylsalicylic acid or other antithrombotic drug, as well as nitrate, and ACE inhibitor. Some patients took lipid‐lowering drugs. Co‐interventions: none described
Outcomes	Mortality and MI
Source of funding	NR
Conflicts of interest	NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of randomisation not described….“patients were randomised into 2 groups….”.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment not described.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding of assessments not described.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Withdrawals were similar for both groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes were reported at all time points.
Groups balanced at baseline	Low risk	“the groups did not differ in major clinical, anamnesis and functional indicators.”
Intention‐to‐treat analysis conducted	Unclear risk	Intention‐to‐treat analysis is not reported, no details of how missing data is handled, and no Ns are given in the results tables.
Groups received same treatment (apart from the intervention)	Low risk	Both groups received standard medical therapy.