Sandercock 2007.

Methods	Study design: RCT Method of randomization: random number tables
Participants	Country: UK Setting: vascular outpatient clinic No. of participants: Baseline: SET: n = 14; HBET: n = 15; WA: n = 15 6 weeks: SET: n = 14; HBET: n = 15; WA: n = 15 3 months: SET: n = 14; HBET: n = 15; WA: n = 15 Age, years (SD): SET: 66 (8); HBET: 62 (14); WA: 67 (6) Sex, % male: SET: 71; HBET: 80; WA: 67 PAD diagnosed by: ABI Inclusion criteria: ABI < 0.94 at rest; symptomatic IC during walking Exclusion criteria: inability to perform familiarization test, poorly controlled hypertension, poorly controlled diabetes, severe coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, limb ischemia, and debilitating pulmonary disease
Interventions	SET: twice a week, 30 minutes of treadmill walking; exercise diary; instructed to undertake 1 additional 30‐minute walking session per week HBET: exercise diary; instructed to undertake three 30‐minute walking sessions per week at rating of perceived effort (RPE) of 12 to 14; contacted weekly by telephone and given support and encouragement in adhering to protocol WA: verbal information regarding safety and efficacy of walking exercise but no specific instructions regarding exercise duration, intensity, or frequency Duration: 3 months Follow‐up period: 3 months
Outcomes	Treadmill test: graded treadmill test; initial speed of 2 miles/h for 2 minutes; gradient then increased by 2% every 2 minutes until test termination Outcomes: maximal walking time, peak oxygen uptake, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate variability measures Participant‐reported outcomes: RPE, pain rating Adherence: NA
Notes	When data were missing, most recent recorded values were carried forward.
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)	Low risk	Central allocation
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	High risk	No blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Missing data imputed via potentially inappropriate methods; when data were missing, most recent recorded values were carried forward ITT analysis described; 3 of 44 participants lost to follow‐up (SET: n = 2; HBET: n = 1; WA: n = 0)
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