Payne 2008.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 20; 10 to the exercise group and 10 to the control group Study start and stop dates: 9‐month period but dates not reported Length of intervention: 14 weeks Length of follow‐up: to end of the intervention
Participants	Type cancer: breast cancer Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time beyond active treatment: not reported  Inclusion criteria: postmenopausal women diagnosis of breast cancer receiving hormonal therapy with tamoxifen, anastrozole, or letrozole during the period of recruitment and study enrolment ≥ 55 years old complaints of fatigue speak English KPS score of ≥ 80 Eligibility criterion related to interest or ability to exercise, or both: no neuromuscular deficits Exclusion criteria: documented history of neurologic deficits or mental illness (e.g. psychotic deficits) within the past year Gender: female Current age, mean (SD) years: 64.7 (6.3) years Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race, n (%): 18 (90%) Caucasian and 2 (10%) African‐American Education level, n (%): 11th or 12th grade education, 5 (25%); some college level education, 7 (35%); college degree or higher level of education, 8 (40%) SES, household income, n (%): ≤ USD20,000, 4 (20%); USD20,001 to USD40,000, 5 (25%); USD40,001 to USD60,000, 4 (20%); > USD60,000, 6 (30%); refused to answer 1 (5%) Employment status, n (%): employed, 3 (15%); homemaker, 1 (5%); retired, 11 (55%); other employment status, 2 (10%); did not provide employment information, 3 (15%) Comorbidities: not reported Past exercise history: not reported On hormone therapy: all used tamoxifen, anastrozole, or letrozole
Interventions	10 participants assigned to the exercise intervention, including: home based walking activity Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic Intensity of experimental exercise intervention: moderate Frequency: 4 times per week Duration of individual sessions: 20 minutes Duration of exercise program: 14 weeks Total number of exercise sessions: 56 sessions Format: individual Facility: home Not professionally led, but explained by study coordinator 10 participants assigned to the control group, including: usual care Adherence: 9 out of the 10 women completed the study, adherence data on number of sessions completed are not specified Contamination of control group: not reported
Outcomes	No primary outcome was identified. QoL outcomes included: fatigue, measured using the Piper Revised Fatigue Scale sleep disturbance, measured using the PSQI depressive symptoms, measured using the CES‐D Physiologic outcomes included: blood chemistry, including cortisol, serotonin, interleukin‐6, bilirubin markers Outcomes were measured at baseline, 12 weeks, and 14 weeks: exercise group: n = 10 at baseline, n = 10 at 12 weeks, n = 9 at 14 weeks control group: n = 10 at baseline, n = 9 at 12 weeks, n = 9 at 14 weeks Subgroup analysis: none reported Adverse events: none reported
Notes	Country: US Funding: NIH/National Institute of Nursing Research
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Generation of allocation sequence was not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Whether the treatment assignment was concealed from study personnel and participants was not described
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	High risk	There was no description on how missing data were handled. Participants in each group withdrew from the study
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There is no evidence of selective reporting of outcomes
Other bias	High risk	Small sample size and low recruitment rate can put study at risk of bias