Bourke 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 18; 9 to the exercise group and 9 to the control group Study start and stop dates: not reported Length of intervention: 12 weeks Length of follow‐up: to end of the intervention
Participants	Type cancer: colon cancer, Dukes stages A to C Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time beyond active treatment: 6 to 24 month exercise group: mean, 16.4 months control group: mean, 16.7 month Inclusion criteria: histologically confirmed colon cancer (Dukes stages A to C) resected within previous 6 to 24 months Eligibility criterion related to interest or ability to exercise, or both: participation in regular physical activity (purposeful activity of at least a moderate intensity of ≥ 30 minutes, 3 times per week) Exclusion criteria: KPS score < 80 unstable angina, uncontrolled hypertension, recent myocardial infarction, or pacemaker Gender, n: exercise group: male (5); female (4) control group: male (7); female (2) Current age, mean (SD) years: exercise group: 67.9 (5.7) years control group: 70.3 (8.7) years Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race: not reported Education level: not reported SES: not reported Employment status: not reported Comorbidities: not reported Past exercise history: not reported On hormone therapy: not reported BMI, mean (SD) kg/m2: exercise group: 26.9 kg/m2 (3.8 kg/m2) control group: 26.0 kg/m2 (3.5 kg/m2)
Interventions	9 participants assigned to the exercise intervention, including: supervised and home‐based exercise sessions, comprised of 2 group‐based supervised exercise sessions once per week, including 30 minutes aerobic exercise (e.g. using treadmills, rowing ergometers, and cycling ergometers) and 2 to 4 sets of 8 to 12 repetitions (with a rest of 30 to 90 seconds between sets) of resistance exercises. In addition, participants were asked to complete similar aerobic activities at home once per week. For weeks 6 to 12, participants attended the university facility once per week and were asked to perform 2 home‐based exercise sessions per week dietary advice Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic and anaerobic Intensity of experimental exercise intervention: 55% to 85% of age predicted maximum HR Frequency: twice per week of supervised sessions and once per week at home for first 6 weeks, then once per week supervised session and twice per week at home for last 6 weeks Duration of individual sessions: 30 minutes and time necessary to complete resistance training Duration of exercise program: 12 weeks Total number of exercise sessions: 36 Format: group and individual Facility: Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK Professionally led: professionally led by experienced exercise physiologist at facility 9 participants assigned to control group, including: usual care Adherence: 90% attendance (completed 146 of 162 sessions) and 94% compliance Contamination of control group: reported no significant difference in exercise behavior as assessed by Godin LSI (15; 95% CI 2 to 28)
Outcomes	No primary outcome identified. QoL outcomes included: fatigue, measured using FACT‐F scale FACT‐C scale Physical outcomes included: exercise behavior, using Godin LSI diet diaries surface electromyography exercise tolerance, using the Bruce Ramp Protocol (Kaminsky 1998) Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 12 weeks: exercise group: n = 9 at baseline, n = 8 at 12 weeks control group: n = 9 at baseline, n = 9 at 12 weeks Subgroup analysis: none reported Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Country: UK Funding: Sheffield Hallam University
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Sequence was generated via code numbers using nQuery statistical software
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation was undertaken by a senior academic who was not directly involved in the recruitment or assessment of patients. The randomization sequence was not disclosed to the researcher responsible for the day‐to‐day running of the trial until patients had completed the baseline assessments
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to mask or blind the participants; however, it is unclear whether the lack of masking or blinding could influence the outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	The researcher responsible for the day‐to‐day running of the trial was informed of the randomization after collection of the baseline data. Other study personnel were not masked or blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	ITT analysis was used to compare participants in the groups they were randomly assigned and data were carried over from previous visits in cases of withdrawal of participants. One participant in the intervention group withdrew owing to a cerebrovascular accident
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There appears to be no selective reporting of outcome
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appears to be free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias