Dimeo 2004.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 72; 34 to the exercise group and 35 to the control group Study start and stop dates: not reported Length of intervention: 3 weeks Length of follow‐up: to end of the intervention
Participants	Type cancer: lung cancer (n = 27), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 42) Cancer stage, n: exercise group: Stage I, 10; Stage II, 13; Stage III, 8; Stage IV, 3 control group: Stage I, 8; Stage II, 15; Stage III, 8; Stage IV, 4 Time since cancer diagnosis, mean (SD) days: exercise group: 211 (24.5) days control group: 174 (15.6) days Time beyond active treatment, mean (SD) days: exercise group: 126 (153) days control group: 134 (151) days Inclusion criteria: 30 to 75 years old ECOG score 0 to 2 surgical intervention for a histologically confirmed lung or gastrointestinal tumor understanding of written German   Eligibility criterion related to interest or ability to exercise, or both: none reported Exclusion criteria: bone metastasis diabetes mellitus impaired left ventricular function coronary heart disease liver or kidney dysfunction psychiatric condition rheumatic disease hemoglobin concentration <10 g/dL ongoing chemotherapy, radiation therapy or immune therapy  Gender: exercise group: 26 male, 9 female control group: 25 male, 10 female Current age, mean (SD) years exercise group: 55.1 (10) years control group: 60.0 (9.5) 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
Interventions	34 participants assigned to the exercise group, including: stationary biking Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic Intensity of experimental exercise intervention: 80% of the maximal HR in the stress test Frequency: 5 times per week Duration of session: 30 minutes Duration of exercise program: 3 weeks Total number of exercise sessions: 15 Format: group Facility: facility‐based Professionally led: not clear, but supervised by an physician in the same room Adherence: not reported 35 participants assigned to the control group, including: progressive relaxation training group (45 minutes 3 times per week for 3 weeks) Contamination of control group: not reported
Outcomes	Outcome: QoL outcomes, using: fatigue subsection of the EORTC QLQ‐C30 Version 2, including 30 questions to evaluate emotional, cognitive, physical and social functioning (function scales), and severity of fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, and constipation/diarrhea (symptom scales) Subgroups: differences between participants with lung and gastrointestinal tumors. No differences found, so combined data from both groups Outcomes were measured at baseline and 3 weeks (end of the intervention): exercise group: n = 34 at baseline, n = 31 at 3 weeks control group, n = 35 at baseline, n = 35 at 3 weeks Adverse events: 3 participants with thrombosis and infection in the exercise group
Notes	Country: Germany Setting: Laboratory Funding: none reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random number list
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"The randomisation sequence was concealed until assignment of interventions"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the participants; however, it is unclear whether the outcome was influenced by a lack of masking
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Study personnel and outcome assessors were not masked or blinded to the study interventions
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	3 patients in the exercise group were admitted to the hospital for the treatment of a concurrent disease (thrombosis, infection). Data for the 3 patients who did not complete the questionnaire after the intervention were evaluated using the "worst rank assumption"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There appears to be no selective reporting of outcomes
Other bias	High risk	Demographic information not reported