Crowley 2003.

Methods	RCT, 2 groups Study start and stop dates: not reported Length of intervention: 13 weeks Length of follow‐up: to the end of the intervention
Participants	22 breast cancer patients, stage I, II; after surgery, receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (doxorubicin (Adriamycin), cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan)), radiation therapy excluded
Interventions	Intervention (n = 13): Aerobic training (walking) and resistance training (tubing), self directed, 60% of HRmax, 20 to 60 min per session, 3 to 5 d/week. Resistance training: 12 to 15 repetitions, approximately 20 minutes, 1 to 2 sets, 2 to 3 d/week, 13 weeks. Control (n = 9): Usual care, the same scheduled contact with the nurse researcher as the intervention group during weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13, activity log
Outcomes	cardiorespiratory fitness: VO2 max/kg ‐ symptom‐limited graded exercise test (GXT), Cornell Treadmill Protocol muscular fitness: 1‐repetition maximum (1‐RM) chest press and leg press fatigue: revised PFS physical self efficacy: items from the Self‐Efficacy to Perform Self‐Management Behaviors and the Self‐Efficacy to Achieve Outcomes scales attention performance: Attentional Functional Index (AFI) functional wellness: investigator‐developed Functional Wellness Questionnaire on perceptions of physical function, wellness, and health physical activity: activity log Outcomes were measured at: physical performance (endurance and strength) week 1 (prior to initiation of the first chemotherapy treatment) and week 13 (3 weeks after the last chemotherapy treatment) fatigue, attention performance, physical self efficacy, functional wellness: week 1, week 7 (midpoint of the treatment cycles), week 13 Adverse events: lymphoedema in 1 participant
Notes	Funding: Not reported Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A random numbers table was utilised prior to the initiation of the study to randomise participants to 1 of the 2 groups. Consecutive numbers on the table were used with numbers ending in an even integer assigned to the exercise group, and numbers ending in an odd integer assigned to the comparison group. Each number was placed in an envelope that was then sealed. The outside of the envelope was then numbered in consecutive order
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Sealed envelope. Comment: it was not mentioned if the envelope was opaque
Blinding of participants All outcomes	High risk	Not done
Blinding of personnel/care providers All outcomes	High risk	Not reported. Comment: probably not done
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Fitness outcomes	Low risk	"The study participant’s group assignment was blinded to the exercise physiologists performing the fitness testing at the week 13 appointment. Study participants were requested to not disclose which study group they had been randomized to."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes except fitness outcomes	High risk	Self reported items
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Missing data were reported for 2 participants for strength assessment. "A second strength was the adherence by both groups in maintaining activity logs and completing all study measures."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Detailed results only available for cardiorespiratory fitness
Group similarity at baseline	Low risk	"The groups were balanced in terms of demographic and disease characteristics."
Adherence	Unclear risk	The nurse researcher used the logs of both groups to assess adherence to the structured exercise program. Adherence defined as completion of 80% of the individualised targeted endurance and strength exercise, frequency, duration, and intensity. The intervention group walked a mean of 113 minutes per week, as compared to 53 minutes by the comparison group. "The intervention group also demonstrated commitment to following the exercise intervention across the study period."
Contamination	Unclear risk	The intervention group walked a mean of 113 minutes per week, as compared to 53 minutes by the comparison group. Thus the intervention group was considered to be performing at a moderate level of activity per week, while the comparison group had a low level of activity over the study period. Study participants were asked to commit to not initiating participation in a formal exercise program during the study period. Continuation of an ongoing exercise regimen was acceptable