Pomeshkina 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: single‐centre RCT with 3 arms (supervised cycling vs home‐based walking vs control) Country: Russia Dates participants recruited: NR Maximum follow‐up: 12 months
Participants	Inclusion criteria: male with coronary artery disease, planned myocardial revascularisation surgery (cardiopulmonary bypass) Exclusion criteria: age over 65 years, unstable angina pectoris, recent MI (less than 30 days), changes in ECG making it difficult to interpret the QRS complex and ST segment, atrial fibrillation and other serious cardiac arrhythmias, decreased LVEF ( < 40%), pulmonary hypertension, respiratory and renal failure, metabolic (obesity, decompensated diabetes mellitus) and concomitant diseases that prevent exercise N randomised: total: 114; intervention 1 (cycling): 36; intervention 2 (walking): 36; comparator: 42 Diagnosis (% of participants): CABG (100%) Age (median, IQR): intervention 1 (cycling): 57, 51‐59; intervention: 56, 51‐57; comparator: 56 (51‐57) Percentage male: 100% Ethnicity (white %): NR
Interventions	Intervention: Group 1: controlled aerobic exercise carried out on a stationary bike Group 2: independent dosed walking at home, with training pace controlled by pedometer Components: Exercise only Setting: group 1 ‐ hospital‐based; group 2 ‐ home‐based Exercise programme modality: group 1 ‐ cycling; group 2 ‐ walking Length of session: 30 minutes Frequency: group 1: 3 sessions per week; group 2: at least 3 times per week Intensity: group 1: 50% to 75% peak heart rate; group 2: walking pace determined by calculation using cycle ergometry test, target heart rate 50% to 75% peak Resistance training included? No Total duration: 3 months Co‐interventions: None described Comparator: Medication plus monthly telephone follow‐up Co‐interventions: None described
Outcomes	HRQoL (results not reported)
Source of funding	Not reported
Conflicts of interest	None declared
Notes	Paper translated from Russian. Authors contacted to request HRQoL data, but no response received
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	By simple randomisation using a table of random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Number randomised and reported in final outcomes the same, appears to be no dropouts
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Methods state that at each time point, participants underwent clinical examination, echocardiography, quality of life assessment and determination of exercise tolerance, but these results are not reported.