Hayes 2013 Tel.

Methods	RCT, 3 groups Study start and stop dates: recruitment between October 2006 and June 2008 Length of intervention: 8 months Length of follow‐up: 8 weeks after end of the intervention
Participants	194 breast cancer patients, of which 142 underwent adjuvant therapy concurrently with the exercise intervention (unpublished data for these patients used in the analyses of this review)
Interventions	Intervention group 1: 'Hayes 2013Tel' Telephone (n = 50) ‐ incorporating both aerobic and strength‐based exercises Intervention group 2: 'Hayes 2013 FtF' Face to face (n = 51) ‐ incorporating both aerobic and strength‐based exercises Control group (n = 41): usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcome: Cancer site‐specific QoL: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Breast (FACT‐B+4) ‐ for patients with breast cancer and lymphoedema Secondary outcomes: Subjective upper body function: DASH Upper body function, clinically measured: strength and endurance test Fatigue: FACIT‐F Menopausal symptoms: Greene Climacteric Scale Neuropathic pain: Neuropathic Pain Scale Cardiorespiratory fitness: 3‐min step test Lymphoedema status: bioimpedance spectroscopy (L‐Dex score) Minutes of physical activity per week (Active Australia Survey) Body composition: BMI Outcomes measured at: 6 months, 12 months
Notes	Funding: This research project was supported by the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The research positions of SH and EE are supported via an NBCF Early Career Research Fellowship and an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship, respectively. Conflict of interest: Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Registered at ACTRN: 012606000233527
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Individually computer‐generated non‐blocked
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
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	"assessors blinded to group allocation"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes except fitness outcomes	High risk	All outcomes except outcomes with clinical assessment: self reported items
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Drop‐out: all participants Face‐to‐face intervention group: 6 Telephone intervention group: 4 Usual‐care group: 4 All participants: 14/194 (7.2%) Comment: For the 142 participants undergoing adjuvant therapy: More than 20% drop‐out for 3‐min step test (cardiorespiratory fitness) High risk for cardiorespiratory fitness ITT analysis, no imputation of data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Registered prospectively
Group similarity at baseline	High risk	Slight imbalance in numbers, place of treatment (public vs private hospital), and rates of mastectomy between groups following randomisation. Rate of mastectomies higher in telephone group. This group has the biggest difference in QoL
Adherence	High risk	25% did not meet the intervention goal at mid‐ or postintervention and did not increase their total physical activity by 30+ min (a priori deemed clinically relevant) between baseline and mid‐ or postintervention
Contamination	High risk	The Active Australia Survey showed that the usual‐care group was more active (more minutes per week) than the FtF group and as active as the Tel group at 6 months. At 12 months, the usual‐care group was more active than the FtF group and less active than the Tel group