Table 2.

Methodological quality assessment of included studies judged using TESTEX scale

	Study quality					Study reporting
Study	Item 1	Item 2	Item 3	Item 4	Item 5	Item 6	Item 7	Item 8	Item 9	Item 10	Item 11	Item 12	Overall	Judgement
Alves et al. [25]	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	6	Fair
Bittman et al. [37]	1	1	0	1	1	2	0	1	1	1	0	1	10	Good
Joensen et al. [38]	1	0	0	1	1	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	8	Fair
Kato et al. [39]	1	0	0	1	1	3	0	1	1	0	0	1	9	Good
Kim et al. [40]	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	7	Fair
Malmo et al. [41]	1	0	0	1	1	3	0	1	1	0	0	1	9	Good
Nourmohammadi et al. [42]	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	6	Fair
Osbak et al. [43]	1	1	1	1	1	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	10	Good
Risom et al. [44]	1	1	1	1	0	2	2	1	1	0	0	1	11	Good
Borland et al. [45]	1	1	1	1	1	3	2	1	1	NA	0	1	13	Excellent
Reed et al. [26]	1	1	1	1	1	0	2	1	1	NA	0	1	10	Good
Skielboe et al. [46]	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	NA	0	1	12	Excellent

Item 1, eligibility criteria specified; Item 2, randomisation specified; Item 3, allocation concealment; Item 4, group similar at baseline; Item 5, blinding of assessor; Item 6, outcome measures assessed in 85% of patients; Item 7, intention-to-treat analysis; Item 8, between-group statistical comparisons reported; Item 9, point measures and measures of variability for all reported outcome measures; Item 10, activity monitoring in control groups; Item 11, relative exercise intensity remained constant; Item 12, exercise volume and energy expenditure; NA, non-applicable item due to study design