Bäck 2008.

Methods	Study design: Single centre RCT Country: Sweden Dates patients recruited: 2004 to 2006 Maximum follow up: 8 months (6 months following PCI)
Participants	Inclusion criteria: Coronary artery stenosis documented by angiography or previous coronary artery bypass grafting, classes I‐III angina pectoris, classified according to Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Exclusion criteria: disabling disease that hindered regular exercise, or if the patient has already engaged in exercise more than 3 days/week. N Randomised: total: 37; intervention: 21; comparator: 16 Diagnosis (% of pts): stable CAD: 100 % Age (years): 63.6 years; intervention: 61.5 (59.8 ‐ 65.5) ; comparator: 64 (58.5 ‐ 71.0) Percentage male: 86.5%. intervention: 81.0%; comparator: 93.8% Ethnicity: NR
Interventions	Intervention: Patients were asked to exercise at home on a bicycle ergometer for 30 min (including a 10 min warm up and a 5 min cool down), 5 days a week for 8 months. The training programme was initiated 2 months before the PCI. Twice a week the training patients were allowed to exchange cycling for an equivalent exercise such as jogging or swimming. Components: exercise and education. Setting: home. Aerobic exercise: Modality: bicycle ergometer. Length of session: 30 min. Frequency: 5 times a week. Intensity: 70% of V02max. Resistance training included? Resistance exercise with elastic bands, 3 times a week. Total duration: 8 months. Co‐interventions: Patients in both groups were invited to participate in the CR care consisting of group‐based lifestyle education and aerobic as well as resistance exercise twice a week during months 4 to 6. Comparator: usual care. Co‐interventions: as above.
Outcomes	PCI at 2 months before PCI and 6 months after PCI.
Source of funding	The Swedish Heart Association, The Research and Development Council for Southern Gothenberg and Bohuslan, and Rene Eanders Foundation.
Conflicts of interest	NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"randomised".
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	8.1% lost to follow‐up, no description of withdrawals or dropouts.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported at all time points (although absolute values not always given).
Groups balanced at baseline	High risk	“There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the training and control group, except for physical activity with the control group being more physically active”.
Intention‐to‐treat analysis conducted	Low risk	Yes.
Groups received same treatment (apart from the intervention)	Low risk	“patients were randomised,….to either training group or control group. All patients in the training group were asked to exercise……”.