Cormie 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics 100% men Usual care Age (yr): 71.2 (SD 6.9) Exercise Age (yr): 71.2 (SD 6.9) Inclusion criteria: men with a histological diagnosis of prostate cancer, established bone metastatic disease. Participants required clearance from their treating physician to participate Exclusion criteria: moderate‐to‐severe pain that limited activities of daily living or had musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, neurological (or a combination of these) disorders that could prevent them from exercising Group differences: none
Interventions	Usual care Asked not to change their physical activity during the study Exercise 2 × 60 minutes for 12 weeks, 5‐minute warm‐up and 10‐minute cool down. Resistance training 2–4 sets of 8–12 repetition maximum for 8 different muscle groups
Outcomes	Knee extension Outcome type: continuous Timed Up‐and‐Go Test Outcome type: continuous Range: 0–20 Unit of measure: seconds Direction: lower was better Balance (Sensory Organisation Test) Outcome type: continuous Range: 0–100 Unit of measure: score Direction: higher was better
Identification	Sponsorship source: Cancer Council of Western Australia Country: Australia Setting: Exercise Clinic Comments: no comment Author's name: P Cormie Institution: Edith Cowan University Health and Wellness Institute E‐mail: p.cormie@ecu.edu.au Address: 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia, 6027
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Following familiarisation and baseline testing sessions, participants were randomised into 2 arms: exercise or usual care. Stratification for age was carried out and participants were randomised in an allocation ratio of 1:1 using a random assignment computer program
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The project coordinator and exercise physiologists involved in assigning participants to groups were blinded to the allocation sequence."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants were not blinded as it is obvious if intervention was applied. This confers high risk of bias, despite attempts to blind the assessors
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)	Unclear risk	There was no mention of whether assessors were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Data were not collected for 25% of participants for 2 outcomes (400‐m walk and leg extension) due to femur bone metastases
Selective outcome reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available, insufficient evidence to make a decision
Size of study	High risk	Fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm
Other sources of bias	Low risk	Study appeared free of other sources of bias