The committee also noted that the subjective nature of the adherence data, when self-reported by people in a home- based exercise programme, meant that it was potentially less reliable. The majority of trials poorly reported details of sequence generation, concealment of the random allocation sequence and blinding of outcome assessment; contributing to the overall high risk of bias in the body of evidence for all outcomes. Losses to follow-up, which varied widely across studies, also contributed to the risk of bias for some outcomes. Trade-off between clinical benefits and harms There was no consistent evidence of a clinically important difference in exercise capacity between home-based and centre-based rehabilitation when quantified via the ISWT, 6MWT, VO2 max and 10 metre walk test (fast). A similar result was seen for quality of life, with no consistent evidence of a clinically important difference between home and centre-based rehabilitation. This was also the case for adherence, with no consistent clinical benefit being observed. The committee noted that this evidence was more challenging to interpret as variation in the way this data was reported across studies prohibited the meta-analysis of these results. In addition to this the committee noted that self-reported adherence by participants enrolled in a home-based exercise programme were likely to be less reliable due to the subjective nature of the reporting. Similarly, no clinically important difference in mortality was seen between the groups, although this estimate was seriously imprecise, with confidence intervals ranging from a clinically important reduction to a clinically important increase in deaths in the home-based groups. Based on the clinical evidence reviewed, the committee agreed that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective for patients with heart failure. 