Wiskemann 2015.

Methods	Randomisation 2 arms: self‐administered exercise intervention versus standard care Recruitment period May 2007 (German Clinic for Diagnostics) or October 2007 (University Clinic of Heidelberg) until September 2008 Median follow‐up time No follow‐up analysis was executed Sample size calculation Not reported
Participants	Eligibility criteria Not reported Participants (N = 105) Intervention group (N = 52) Control group (N = 53) Mean age Intervention group: 47.6 years Control group: 50 years Disease Intervention group: 12 AML, 6 ALL, 2 CML, 2 CLL, 7 MDS, 6 secondary AML, 7MPS, 2 multiple myeloma, 7 lymphoma, 1 aplastic anaemia Control group: 10 AML, 8 ALL, 2 CML, 2 CLL, 5 MDS, 5 secondary AML, 6 MPS, 1 multiple myeloma, 13 lymphoma, 1 aplastic anaemia Country Germany
Interventions	Exercise group 1 ‐ 4 weeks before admission to hospital participants started exercise programme, continued during inpatient period and until 6 ‐ 8 weeks after discharge from hospital Outpatient intervention self‐directed at home Inpatient intervention partly supervised, twice per week and adjusted to the isolation unit conditions 3 ‐ 5 endurance and 2 resistance training sessions per week Endurance training: rapid walking for 20 ‐ 40 minutes; bicycling or treadmill walking Strength training: with and without colour‐coded stretch bands with different levels of resistance (8 ‐ 20 repetitions, 2 or 3 sets) Control group Explanation that moderate physical activity is favourable during treatment process without further advice. During inpatient period, physiotherapy was offered up to 3 times per week (30 minutes). Participants had the same access to stationary cycles and treadmills as exercise group All participants received allogeneic stem cell transplantation
Outcomes	Reported and relevant for this review Fatigue Physical performance Quality of life Physical/psychologic distress
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: "Patients were randomised by the minimisation procedure stratified by age, disease, and sex for each centre to an exercise or a control group“
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
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)	High risk	Quote: "The testers were not blinded to randomisation but not involved in the therapeutic supervision of the patients.“
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	112 participants were randomly assigned to both study arms. In study analysis only 105 participants were included. Moreover, it is not reported, how many patients in the control arm performed exercise
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available
Other bias	Unclear risk	Not reported

ALL: acute lymphoblastic leukaemia; AML: acute myeloid leukaemia;ASCT: autologous stem cell transplant; BMT: bone marrow transplant; B‐NHL: B‐cell non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma; CLL: chronic lymphoblastic leukaemia; CML: chronic myeloid leukaemia; DCEP: dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin;EPO: erythropoietin;Hb: haemoglobin; HCT: haematopoietic cell transplantation; HL: Hodgkin's lymphoma; MDS: myelodysplastic syndrome; NHL: non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma; OS: overall survival; T‐NHL: T‐cell non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma;QoL: quality of life