All of the studies compared home-based exercise training with centre-based exercise training supervised by a healthcare professional. The included evidence ranged from high to very low quality. Outcomes were downgraded due to a high or very high risk of bias, imprecision due to wide confidence intervals surrounding the point estimate and inconsistency due to heterogeneity between the effect estimates for meta analysed outcomes. Five studies reported the outcome all-cause mortality (n=335) which showed no clear clinical effect of home-based exercise training with the confidence interval ranging from a decrease and increase in all-cause mortality For the outcome QoL (as measured by the SF- 36), 2 studies (n=161) showed that there was no clinically important effect of home-based exercise training on either the physical or mental component summaries. A further single study (n=49) also showed no clinical effect of home-based exercise training on either the EQ-5D utility score or the MLWHFQ. This was also the case for exercise capacity as measured by the 6 minute walk test (n=201), the incremental shuttle walk test (n=161), VO2max (n=221) and the 10 metre walk test (fast) (n=49). The outcome, number of people completing the exercise programmes (n=295) showed a clinically important benefit of home-based exercise training. For adherence to the intervention the outcome data reported by each study was not meta-analysed due to considerable variation in the manner in which it was reported across studies. The direction and magnitude of effect varied between studies with both a clinical benefit and clinical harm being shown. None of the studies reported the outcome hospitalisations (both all-cause and HF-related), cardiovascular mortality and health service use. Economic One comparative cost analysis found that home training was more costly than hospital training for delivering rehabilitation (cost difference: 480 per patient). 