Bengtsson 1983.

Methods	Study design: Single centre RCT Country: Sweden Dates patients recruited: October 1973 to January 1975 Maximum follow up: 14 months
Participants	Inclusion criteria: patients > 65 years with MI. Exclusion criteria: Severe cardiac failure, PMI‐syndrome, aortic regurgitation, cerebral infarct hemiparesis, disease of hip, status post‐poliomyelitis, amputation of lower extremity, diabetes with retinopathy, hyper/hypo thyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, mental illness. N Randomised: total: 87; intervention: 44; comparator: 43 Diagnosis (% of pts): AMI: 100% Age (years ± SD): intervention: 55.3 ± 6.6; comparator: 57.1 ± 6.6 Percentage male: 85% Ethnicity: NR
Interventions	Intervention: Physical training under the supervision of a specially trained physiotherapist attached to the cardiological unit. Exercises consisted of interval training of large muscle groups on a mechanically braked ergometer bicycle, calisthenics and jogging for 30 minutes twice weekly over a period of 3 months. The intensity of the exercises was graded individually on the basis of the findings at the exercise tolerance test, and a maximum heart rate at exercise was prescribed. Components: exercise, counselling and social measures. Setting: supervised at the cardiological unit. Aerobic exercise: Modality: ergometer cycling. Length of session: 30 min. Frequency: twice per week. Intensity: 90% of the max heart rate at the exercise tolerance test. Resistance training included? interval training of large muscle groups, callisthenics. Total duration: 3 months. Co‐interventions: Counselling was given, supplying practical information on avoiding weight gain, to stop smoking, to keep on with the physical exercise and to resume leisure activities as much as possible. Comparator: conventional care. Co‐interventions: none described.
Outcomes	Total mortality, CHD mortality, non‐fatal MI up to average 14 months.
Source of funding	NR
Conflicts of interest	NR
Notes	Most emphasis on social/ psychological aspects. 171 patients were randomised and at discharge the cardiologist decided whether the patient was fit to take part in the rehab programme ‐ 45 patients were excluded at this point. Seven of intervention group declined to take part, but six of these were seen at follow up and included in the analysis because "control group probably had a comparable number who would have declined further treatment."
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"allocated at random".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding not described.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Description of withdrawals & dropouts: Intervention Group 29%;Control group 33% lost to follow up from 126 who took part. 171 were randomised and then 45 excluded by cardiologist.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes were reported at all time points.
Groups balanced at baseline	Low risk	“No significant differences with regard to age, sex, number of infarcts, highest serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase value, heart size on X‐ray, or number of days in hospital existed between the two groups”.
Intention‐to‐treat analysis conducted	Low risk	Yes.
Groups received same treatment (apart from the intervention)	High risk	"The program comprised…. Physical training supervised by a physiotherapist; counselling, individually and in groups; counselling of members of the family; social measures”.