Salehi 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design Parallel RCT Study dates Duration of follow‐up: 4 months Time frame: not reported
Participants	Study characteristics Setting: single centre (HD units of Shafa Hospital and Jawad Al Aemeh Center, affiliated with Kerman University of Medical Sciences) Country: Iran Inclusion criteria: ≥ 18 years; receiving HD for at least 3 months; without problems in their legs Exclusion criteria: contraindication of exercise according to doctors' perspective; diabetic foot; PTH > 1000 ng/L; not exercising for more than 3 sessions Baseline characteristics Number (analysed/randomised): intervention group (20/27); control group (17/27) Mean age ± SD (years): intervention group (57.8 ± 9.17); control group (54.65 ± 10.02) Sex (M/F): intervention group (13/7); control group (13/4) Dialysis type: HD Mean dialysis vintage ± SD (years): intervention group (3.6 ± 3.2); control group (3.1 ± 1.7) Comorbidities CVD: not reported Diabetes: not reported Hypertension: not reported Depression (clinician diagnosis): not reported
Interventions	Intervention classification Non‐pharmacological intervention Indication: study targeting fatigue Intervention group Mini‐bikes for 20 min twice/week for 3 months Control group No intervention for 3 months Co‐interventions Not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Fatigue outcome measures used: validation data available Death Fatigue MFI‐20 (Appendix 3) Fatigue Physical fatigue Decline in activity Decline in motivation Mental fatigue
Notes	Additional information Funding: none Conflicts of interest/disclosures: none Trial registration identification number: IRCT20180314039100N1 A priori published protocol was reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Sequence generation methods were not reported in sufficient detail to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of allocation concealment was not reported in sufficient detail to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported. However, interventions were different and participants and/or investigators could be aware of the treatment assigned
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Fatigue was assessed with an appropriate measure, without differences between groups. However, subjective measures were used, it was not stated whether outcomes were assessed without knowledge of treatment allocation, and knowledge of treatment assignment may have influenced reporting. Participant beliefs about the superiority/inferiority of either intervention could have influenced their assessment of the outcome, but there was no evidence that this was likely. However, subjective and objective outcomes were assessed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	20/27 participants in the intervention group and 17/27 participants in the control group completed the study (> 5% lost to follow‐up). There were differences between groups. Reasons for discontinuation were reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Information about the protocol and the statistical analysis plan were reported. Fatigue was assessed using multiple eligible outcome measurements (scales and time points). Fatigue at the end of treatment was reported in a format that was extractable for meta‐analysis. All outcomes that should be addressed (fatigue, cardiovascular disease, and death) were not reported
Other bias	Low risk	There was no evidence of different baseline characteristics, or different non‐randomised co‐interventions between groups. There was no source of funding or conflict of interests. No other source of bias were apparent