Rose 1965.

Methods	RCT, 2 arms, parallel (n6 LA vs MUFA), 24 months Summary risk of bias: moderate to high
Participants	People with ischaemic heart disease CVD risk: high N: 28 intervention, 26 control (analysed 15 intervention, 12 control) % male: not reported Mean age: 52.6 intervention, 55 control (no SDs) Age range: not reported Smokers: not reported Hypertension: not reported Medications taken by ≥ 50% of those in the control group: not reported Medications taken by 20%‐49% of those in the control group: not reported Medications taken by some, but < 20% of the control group: not reported Location: UK Ethnicty: not reported
Interventions	Type: test oil provided (equivalent advice to both arms) Comparison: n‐6 vs MUFA Intervention: 80 g/day corn oil to be taken in 3 equal doses at meal‐times plus participants were instructed to avoid fried foods. Fatty meat, sausages, pastry, ice‐cream, cheese, cakes, milk, eggs, butter were restricted: assuming 80% LA in corn oil, 64 g/d LA or 576 kcal/d or 28.8% E from LA Control: 80 g/day olive oil plus participants were instructed to avoid fried foods, fatty meat, sausages, pastry, ice‐cream, cheese, cakes, milk, eggs, butter were restricted. assuming 12% LA and 69% MUFA in olive oil, 9.6 g/d LA or 4.3% E LA and 55.2 g/d MUFA or 24.8% E Dose aim: +24.5% E from LA, ‐24.8% E MUFA Baseline PUFA: unclear Compliance using biomarkers: serum TC reduced, but not statistically significantly reduced in intervention compared to control (‐0.49 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐1.34 to 0.36). No fatty acid biomarkers reported. Compliance using dietary assessment: poor. Measured using questionnaire. Mean intake of oil in intervention was 595 kcal/d or 476 kcal/d LA or 23.8% E, in control 540 kcal/d or 3.2% E LA and 18.6% E MUFA, achieved: +20.6% E from LA, ‐18.6% E MUFA within the oils, unclear how diet altered Energy intake: intervention 2070 kcal/d control 2045 kcal/d Total fat intake: intervention 50 g/d + 595 kcal from oil or 1045 kcal/d or 52% E, control 45 g/d + 540 kcal from oil or 945 kcal/d or 47.3% E SFA intake: not reported PUFA intake: not reported PUFA n‐3 intake: not reported PUFA n‐6 intake: +20.6% E (higher in intervention than control) Trans fat intake: not reported (oils provided so not likely to be a problem) MUFA intake: ‐18.6% E (lower in intervention than control) CHO intake: intervention 189 g/d or 756 kcal/d or 37.8% E, control 216 g/d or 864 kcal/d or 43.2% E Sugars intake: not reported Protein intake: intervention 57 g/d or 228 kcal/d or 11.4% E, control 49 g/d or 196 kcal/d or 9.8% E Alcohol intake: not reported Compliance by other methods: no others reported Inclusion basis: aim was to increase omega‐6 fats, not total PUFA. Total PUFA not reported but LA dose so big that total PUFA must have been increased in intervention compared to control. Best estimate 20.6% E total PUFA dose, > 10% increase from baseline PUFA dose: according to questionnaire 20.6% E from LA, assume equivalent to 20.6% E from total PUFA Duration of intervention: 2 years
Outcomes	Main trial outcome: occurrence of infraction Dropouts: 6 intervention, 11 control?, details provided in table but unclear how many dropped out. Available outcomes: major CVD events, MI (fatal and non‐fatal), sudden death, serum cholesterol Response to contact: not attempted as published in the 1960s
Notes	Trial funding: no details The trial had a 3rd control arm (no intervention), which has not been used here.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	When a new participant was accepted for the trial a sealed envelope was opened containing the allocation instructions. In the case of participants allocated to an oil group the instructions referred only to a code number.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The physicians in charge knew which participants were receiving oil, but they did not know until the end of the trial the kind of oil that they were receiving.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The electrocardiograms were assessed without the knowledge of the participant's treatment group
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	52% intervention, and 57% control remained in the trial after 24 months. However, the list of reasons and complications is provided.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial registry record or protocol found
Attention bias	Low risk	Oil provided to both groups, appeared similar
Compliance	Low risk	TC somewhat reduced in intervention compared to control (‐0.49 mmol/L, 95% CI ‐1.34 to 0.36). No fatty acid biomarkers reported
Other bias	Low risk	None noted