Jónsdóttir 2006a.
| Methods | Parallel‐group RCT | |
| Participants |
N randomised: 43 (exercise 21, control 22) Diagnosis (% of participants): Aetiology: ischaemic 79%, AF 12%, valvular 7%, hypertension 2% NYHA: Class II and III LVEF: exercise 41.5 (SD 13.6), control 40.6% (SD 13.7) Case mix: as above Age, years: exercise 68 (SD 7), control 69 (SD 5) Male: 79% White: not reported Inclusion/exclusion criteria: Inclusion: CHF diagnosis; on CHF medication; clinical symptoms of CHF; clinically stable > 3 months before study entrance; fulfilling 1 of the following criteria: previous MI, hospitalised because of CHF, lung oedema, and cardiac enlargement on X‐ray Exclusion: chronic obstructive lung disease, orthopaedic disabilities, psychiatric disabilities, cancer, senility, age > 80 years |
|
| Interventions |
Exercise: Total duration: 5 months Aerobic/resistance/mix: mix Frequency: 2 sessions/week Duration: 45 minutes Intensity: not reported Modality: cycling, free weights, and elastic rubber bands (Thera‐bands) Setting: hospital outpatients, supervised by physiotherapists Other: training group given 3 educational lectures about nutrition, physical activity, and relaxation, in addition to the exercise programme Control group / Comparison: Usual medical care (continued previous level of physical activity, which varied from performing little physical activity to taking a daily walk outdoors) |
|
| Outcomes | Rehospitalisation; mortality | |
| Country and setting | Iceland Single centre |
|
| Follow‐up | 12 months and 28 months (after randomisation) | |
| Notes | Source of funding: none reported | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes described in the methods were reported in the results |
| Intention‐to‐treat analysis? | Low risk | Although not reported as an ITT analysis, groups did appear to be analysed according to the original randomised allocation |
| Incomplete outcome data? | Low risk | No losses to follow‐up |
| Groups balanced at baseline? | Low risk | Table 2 of the publication suggests that the 2 groups were well balanced |
| Groups received same intervention? | Low risk | Yes, both groups appeared to receive the same interventions apart from the CR intervention |