Dias 2014.

Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Location, number of centres: gymnasium Country: Brazil Study period: 9 weeks Methods of analysis: each week the number of symptoms of acute respiratory infection was reported Statistical analysis: for frequency and intensity of symptoms of ARI, ANOVA of Friedman was applied for the intra‐group analysis and, when a difference was indicated, the post hoc model of Wilcoxon was employed with Bonferroni adjustments. In the verification of inter‐group differences at moments S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, and S8, the Mann‐Whitney test was adopted using P ≤ 0.05, significant. In addition, Spearman correlation was used to associate ARI symptoms to exercise.
Participants	Recruitment means: not reported Target participants: postmenopausal and sedentary women N randomised: 16 adult postmenopausal women N completed: 16 postmenopausal women: 8 (exercise) and 8 (control) Gender F = 16: exercise 8, control 8 Age: exercise 58.7 ± 6.1, control 60.9 ± 6.8 Inclusion criteria: women classified as sedentary and untrained in strength training; "Post‐menopausal" women who did not use any type of hormone replacement therapy or medications; volunteers with symptoms of IVAS and inserted into a group social analogy. The exclusion criteria of the study were: patients with symptoms of IVAS classified as extreme (muscular and joint pain, pain in the back of the eyes and the nape of the neck, swelling or pain in the throat lymph nodes or fever) previously or at any point of the intervention. Baseline details: age, BMI, waist circumference, waist/hip ratio
Interventions	Setting of intervention: not reported Description of intervention: strength training alternating all body parts in all sessions. 3 sessions per week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday). The resistance exercise was conducted using free weights, and no load volume test was performed. Delivered by: researcher Follow‐up period: 9 weeks Co‐interventions: none
Outcomes	Number of symptoms of ARI collected every week using a subjective scale from 1 to 4. Follow‐up period: 9 weeks
Notes	Study funding: not reported No data could be extracted because the study authors reported only mean values and P values in the results.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Just "random" was reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No allocation concealment mentioned or described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	The participants could not be blinded due to the characteristics of the intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Outcomes measured by participant self‐report.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	There was no loss of data in the outcomes analysed.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	The study protocol is not available, the results are poorly described, and not all outcomes proposed were published in the results.
Other bias	High risk	The study is underpowered and is lacking much important information regarding recruitment process and where the study took place, as well as participant sociodemographic data.