Kovoor 2006.

Methods	Study design: Multicentre RCT (2 sites) Country: Australia Dates patients recruited: NR Maximum follow up: 6 months
Participants	Inclusion criteria: AMI; < 75 years of age; no angina; < 2 mm ST‐segment depression with exercise and if they attained > 7‐METS workload; left ventricular ejection fraction > 40% or no inducible ventricular tachycardia. Exclusion criteria: Patients were excluded if there was 2 mm ST‐segment depression with exercise or if 7‐METS workload was attained. N Randomised: total: 142; intervention: 70; comparator: 72 Diagnosis (% of pts): AMI: 100% Age (mean): intervention: 56.2; comparator: 55.8 Percentage male: intervention: 89%; comparator: 86% Ethnicity: NR
Interventions	Intervention: Exercise (conventional treatment group): 5 week rehabilitation program consisted of exercise, education, and counselling sessions that were held 2 to 4 times per week, including work at 6 weeks after AMI. Components: Exercise, education and psychological. Setting: NR Aerobic exercise: Modality: NR Length of session: NR Frequency: 2 to 4 times per week. Intensity: NR Resistance training included? NR Total duration: 5 weeks Co‐interventions: The 2 groups of patients were encouraged to exercise at home on a regular basis. Patients were given the telephone numbers of the cardiologist and the nurse co‐ordinator so they could be contacted in case of problems. Comparator: Control group (ERNA ‐ early return to normal activities group): return to work at 2 weeks after AMI without a formal CR programme. Co‐interventions: This group of patients was contacted over the telephone by the nurse co‐ordinator once per week for 5 weeks. The 2 groups of patients were encouraged to exercise at home on a regular basis. Patients were given the telephone numbers of the cardiologist and the nurse co‐ordinator so they could be contacted in case of problems.
Outcomes	Total mortality; fatal/non‐fatal mortality; CABG; PCI; HRQL. Costs reported in Hall 2002 Assessment at 6 weeks and at 6 months.
Source of funding	National Health and Medical Research Council, Sydney, Australia.
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.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Randomization schedules were generated by an independent investigator and were kept in opaque sealed envelopes."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"GHPS .... scans being analyzed in a blinded fashion by an independent nuclear medicine specialist." Blinding of other outcome assessments not described.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	20.4% lost to follow‐up, no description of withdrawals or dropouts.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported all time points.
Groups balanced at baseline	High risk	"At the time of randomization, there was a larger number of patients (p = 0.02) in the conventional treatment group who never adhered to a low‐cholesterol, low‐fat diet than in the ERNA group."
Intention‐to‐treat analysis conducted	Low risk	Yes.
Groups received same treatment (apart from the intervention)	High risk	“conventional treatment group” = 5‐week rehabilitation program which consisted of exercise, education, and counselling sessions that were held 2 to 4 times per week vs “early return to normal activities group” = return to full normal activities, including work at 2 weeks, after AMI without a formal rehabilitation programme.