Chaudhari 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Unit of randomisation: No information Total duration of study: No information Run‐in period: No information Intervention time: 6 months Follow‐up: At 6 months Setting: Monocenter, Safdarjang Hospital and Vardhman Mahavir Medical College, New Delhi, India
Participants	Type of heart failure: Ischaemic HF N = 158 (ivabradine: 78; SC: 80) Mean age: Ivabradine: 57.52 ± 9.3 years Standard care: 59.47 ± 8.3 years (S Bansal on 2 December 2018 via email) Gender: Ivabradine: 70 (89.74%) male Standard care: 65 (81.25%) male (S Bansal on 2 December 2018 via email) Severity of condition: LVEF < 40% Inclusion criteria: Stable, ischaemic HF Exclusion criteria: No information Withdrawals: No information
Interventions	Intervention: Ivabradine 5 mg twice a day Comparison: SC Concomitant medications: No information Excluded medications: No information
Outcomes	Outcomes and time points measured in the study: [Month 0, 6] LV dimension LVEF Exercise duration (in seconds) Quality of life score assessment by KCCQ Serum BNP level Conclusion: There was no significant difference in mortality and morbidity with ivabradine therapy in patients with heart failure in whom betablockers were contraindicated. Hospitilisation was more or less same in both the groups.
Notes	Funding for trial: "Our hospital is a federal government university teaching hospital. The diagnosis and treatment are free. However, free samples of Ivabradine were provided by an Indian company – M/S Cipla Private Limited, an Indian pharmaceutical company." (S Bansal on 2 December 2018 via email) Notable conflicts of interest of authors: No information Unpublished data: Information about the trial's funding, way of randomisation, age, sex, NYHA, and EF was provided via email by S Bansal on 2 December 2018. Contact to authors/unpublished data: We contacted S Bansal via email on 22 November 2018 to ask for funding, way of randomisation, age, sex, NYHA, EF, and missing data. S Bansal answered on 2 December 2018 providing information about funding, way of randomisation, age, sex, NYHA, EF, and other additional outcomes such as BNP levels.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	"Simple manual (non computer based) randomization was used. Every third individual in the outpatient clinic who satisfied the inclusion criteria was considered for Ivabradine add‐on therapy over and above GDMT." (S Bansal on 2 December 2018 via email)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding possible due to comparison with SC
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement
Other bias	Unclear risk	"Our hospital is a federal government university teaching hospital. The diagnosis and treatment are free. However, free samples of Ivabradine were provided by an Indian company – M/S Cipla Private Limited, an Indian pharmaceutical company." (S Bansal on 2 December 2018 via email)