Roman 1983.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: single‐centre RCT Country: Chile Dates participants recruited: June 1973 to June 1981 Maximum follow‐up: 9 years
Participants	Inclusion criteria: participants with transmural AMI Exclusion criteria: severe arrhythmias persisting after the acute phase of AMI (frequent ventricular premature beats, grade iii‐iv of the Lown classification, atrial flutter, partial or complete AV block); great left‐ventricular enlargement; left ventricular aneurysm; persistent cardiac failure; severe diastolic hypertension post‐myocardial infarction angina. N randomised: total: 193; intervention: 93; comparator: 100 Diagnosis (% of participants): Transmural AMI: 100% Anterior wall infarction: 55% Posteroinferior infarction: 45% Age (mean ± SD): intervention: 56.2 ± 10.3; comparator: 59.1 ± 8.8 Percentage male: intervention: 93.6%; comparator: 87% Ethnicity: NR
Interventions	Intervention: Supervised physical training programme according to the guidelines reported by Zohman and Tobias. It was started with combined ergometric, callisthenic and walk‐jogging exercise lasting 30 min, three times a week. The intensity of the training was graded according to the target heart rate threshold, defined as 70% of maximal heart rate achieved by the participant in the former ergometric work test. Components: exercise only Setting: centre Exercise programme modality: combined ergometric and walk‐jogging exercise Length of session: 30 min Frequency: three times a week Intensity: 70% of maximal heart rate Resistance training included? Callisthenics Total duration: average 42 months (range 6 to 108 months) Co‐interventions: none described Comparator: Control participants were medically treated according to the guidelines commonly used; namely, short‐ and long‐lasting nitrites, ß‐ blockers or Ca antagonists (nifedipine). Co‐interventions: A small number (8 participants) were also treated with oral anticoagulants.
Outcomes	Mortality, MI and revascularisations
Source of funding	NR
Conflicts of interest	NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	“Patients were randomly allocated…”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	18/93 (19.4%) and 18/100 (18%) withdrew or dropped out from intervention and control groups over the 9‐year period.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Mortality, morbidity and complications were recorded over the duration of the study and are presented as rates.