Hodges 2008.

Methods	Study design: RCT Method of randomization: computerized random numbers table
Participants	Country: UK Setting: vascular outpatient clinic No. of participants: Baseline: SET: n = 14; WA: n = 14 6 weeks: SET: n = 14; WA: n = 14 3 months: SET: n = 14; WA: n = 14 Age, years (SD): 68 (8) Sex, % male: NA PAD diagnosed by: ABI Inclusion criteria: PAD (ABI < 0.9 at rest) and symptomatic IC (Edinburgh Walking Questionnaire) Exclusion criteria: inability to complete familiarization test, poorly controlled hypertension, poorly controlled diabetes, severe coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, and debilitating pulmonary disease
Interventions	SET: 12 weeks of supervised exercise twice weekly; treadmill walking until Stage III or IV on PAD pain scale; further exercise session at home WA: walking as often as possible, but no exercise regimen to follow Duration: 3 months Follow‐up period: 3 months
Outcomes	Treadmill test: graded progressive treadmill exercise test with initial speed of 3.2 km/h and 0% gradient for 2 minutes; gradient increased by 2% every 2 minutes, and speed remaining constant (Gardner‐Skinner protocol) Outcomes: maximal walking time, peak oxygen uptake, maximal heart rate, respiratory exchange ratio, rate of perceived exertion, pain, mean arterial pressure, cardiac output, cardiac power output Participant‐reported outcomes: NA Adherence: NA
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Referring to random number table
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of concealment not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding; inherent to study design
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient reporting of attrition to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Published reports included all expected outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Study appears to be free of other sources of bias