Vollmers 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics 100% women Usual care Age (yr): 52.39 (SD 10.14) Exercise Age (yr): 48.56 (SD 11.94) Inclusion criteria: primary breast cancer, aged 18–75 years and primary paclitaxel treatment for 12 weeks. Exclusion criteria: existing cardiopulmonary diseases (e.g. New York Heart Association class III, myocardial infarction < 3 months), renal insufficiency (glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/minute), neurological diseases (e.g. multiple sclerosis, other neuropathies), metabolic diseases (e.g. diabetes mellitus; severe obesity (body mass index > 35 kg/m²) and the extensive consumption of alcohol either currently or in the past Group differences: none
Interventions	Usual care Received an instruction sheet informing them about the current state of science concerning physical activity in malignant diseases and suggesting a regular physical activity designed autonomously by the participants Exercise 2 × physical training and sensorimotor exercises per week for 18 weeks
Outcomes	Postural sway Outcome type: continuous Scale: distance Unit of measure: centimetres Direction: lower was better Data value: change from baseline Chair rising test Outcome type: continuous Scale: number of repetitions Direction: higher was better Data value: change from baseline
Identification	Sponsorship source: none declared Country: Germany Setting: University Hospital Comments: none Author's name: Paul Lennart Vollmers Institution: University Hospital for Women, Kiel Address: Arnold‐Heller‐Strabe 3, Haus 14, 24105 Kiel, Germany
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information regarding randomisation process. Stated participants were randomised (via 1:1 randomisation) but did not specify how this occurred
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No reporting on process of allocation (i.e. no information about who or how)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants were not blinded to their allocation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)	Unclear risk	No mention of whether assessors were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Relatively large proportion withdrawn after enrolment (7/43); not accounted for in the analysis. No intention‐to‐treat analysis. No data presented on participants who dropped out
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	High risk	Baseline imbalance between intervention and control groups for the balance variable