Andersen 1981.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Country: Denmark Dates participants recruited: NR Maximum follow‐up: 37 months Post MI randomised four weeks after discharge.
Participants	Inclusion criteria: < 66 yrs with 1st MI Exclusion criteria: participants without motivation and participants with impairment of the motorial apparatus that excluded training N randomised: total: 75; intervention: 38; comparator: 37 Diagnosis (% of participants): post MI: 100% Age (mean ±SD): intervention: 52.2 ± 7.5; comparator: 55.6 ± 6.3 Percentage male: intervention: 100%; comparator: 100% Ethnicity: NR
Interventions	Intervention: aerobic activity e.g. running, cycling, skipping + weights for 1 hour x 2 weekly for 2 months, then x 1 week for 10 months. Then continue at home. Components: exercise only Setting: centre‐based initially, followed by home Exercise programme modality: e.g. running, cycling, skipping Length of session: 1 hour Frequency: twice a week for two months, and then weekly for 10 months Intensity: initial load of 150 kpm/min (24.5 W). increased with 150 kpm/min every 6 mins Resistance training included? yes ‐ weights Total duration: 12 months Co‐interventions: none described Comparator: non‐trained group (although some participants trained on own initiative) Co‐interventions: none described
Outcomes	Total and CHD mortality Non‐fatal MI Outcomes measured at 1, 13, 25 and 37 months post‐discharge
Source of funding	NR
Conflicts of interest	NR
Notes	88 participants were randomised, but 13 failed to follow up. Therefore, 75 took part in the study. Several participants in control group trained on own initiative, but were analysed as intention‐to‐treat. Triallists concluded that physical training after MI appears to reduce consequences and to improve PWC, but PWC declines once participant is on their own. Physical training had no effect on period of convalescence or return to work, but age and previous occupation were of significance.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"random numbers"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	15% lost to follow‐up; no description of withdrawals or dropouts
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes were reported at all time points