Dhillon 2017.

Methods	Design: randomised controlled trial Setting: outpatient clinic, Sydney, Australia Study duration: 8 weeks
Participants	232 participants with stage III or IV NSCLC, or SCLC were invited. 112 randomised, 1 became ineligible. 111 participants participated. Exercise group: n = 56 (29M), mean age 64 (38‐80) years, 70% were on palliative treatment, 33 were current or ex‐smokers, median 8.6 months following diagnosis. Control group: n = 55 (32M), mean age 64 (34‐76) years, 78% were on treatment, 95% stage IV, 36 were current or ex‐smokers, median 7.7 months post‐diagnosis.
Interventions	Exercise (n = 56): 8‐week individualised PA programme. Supervised once weekly for 30‐45 minutes, for 8‐weeks; physical activity was individually tailored; walking mainly. The goal was to increase baseline PA over two months by 3 MET hours per week; no specifics provided on frequency of home‐base training. Behavioural support sessions, 15‐20 min/week. Guide book was provided for home exercise. Control (n = 55): usual care attended study assessments only.
Outcomes	Exercise capacity (6MWD), muscle force‐generating capacity (number of reps of arm curls; hand grip strength), HRQoL (EORTC Global), dyspnoea (SanDiego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire), fatigue (FACIT‐Fatigue), anxiety and depression (General Health Questionnaire‐12), lung function (FEV1, L; FEV1/FVC), Physical activity level (self‐report, Active Australia, physical activity minutes per day; objective accelerometer, Actigraph, moderate and vigorous physical activity, minutes), performance status (ECOG), body weight (kg), overall survival (months)
Notes	Additional information was provided from authors on SD of within‐group changes (or baseline and post‐intervention scores).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Treatment allocation was determined by minimisation".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Patients were randomised (1:1) via central Interactive Voice Response System,..."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "Allocation was not blinded due to nature of the intervention".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: no blinding.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "A comparison of baseline data for primary outcome between those with complete versus incomplete data, showed those with incomplete data were more ill, with poorer PS, more co morbidities, poorer QOL, worse ADL function, and shorter survival".
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: all data outcome reporting matches the protocol paper.
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: the study appears to be free of other sources of bias.