Baumann 2010.

Methods	Randomisation 2 arms: endurance and activity of daily living‐training twice a day versus standard care Recruitment period March 2002 to July 2004 Median follow‐up time No follow‐up analysis Sample size calculation Based on a pragmatic approach
Participants	Eligibility criteria Adults (≥ 18 years of age) Malignant disease scheduled to receive transplantation Good German language skills Written informed consent Participants (N = 64) Intervention group (N = 32) Control group (N = 32) Mean age Intervention group: 49.4 years Control group: 44.1 years Stage/type of disease Intervention group: 10 AML, 6 ALL, 2 CML, 4 multiple myeloma, 5 NHL/CLL, 4 MDS, 1 solid tumour Control group: 15 AML, 3 ALL, 1 CML, 5 multiple myeloma, 3 NHL/CLL, 2 MDS, 2 solid tumour, 1 immunodeficiency Country Germany
Interventions	Exercise group Endurance training on bicycle ergometer (10 to 20 minutes) Activities of daily living training: included elements of daily living to maintain participant's mobility; daily 20 minutes including walking, stepping and stretching Twice a day Started 6 days before transplantation Control group Passive and active mobilisation (gymnastics, massage, extensions, co‐ordination training) with low intensity on 5 days per week Started 1 day after transplantation until 1 day before discharge
Outcomes	Reported and relevant for this review Quality of life Fatigue Participant's endurance Strength Reported and not relevant for this review Lung function Blood count
Notes	Conflict of interest not reported, funding not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote:"randomization was achieved....using computer‐generated numbers"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote:"randomization was achieved....using computer‐generated numbers"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding in this context is not feasible
Blinding of outcome assessor (primary endpoint; mortality)	Low risk	The review authors judge that the outcome mortality in this unblinded trial is unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessor (patient‐reported outcomes)	High risk	Blinding in this context is not feasible
Blinding of outcome assessor (physical performance, AEs, SAEs)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote:"All 64 randomized patients represented the intent‐to‐treat population"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available
Other bias	Unclear risk	Not reported