Chandwani 2010.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 71, but 10 withdrew leaving 61; 30 to the exercise group and 31 to the control group Study start and stop dates: not reported Length of intervention: 6 weeks Length of follow‐up: 3 months
Participants	Type cancer: breast cancer Stage, n (%): exercise group: Stage 0, 2 (7%); Stage I, 6 (20%); Stage II, 12 (40%); Stage III, 10 (33%) control group: Stage 0, 0 (0%); Stage I, 10 (32%); Stage II, 15 (48%); Stage III, 6 (19%) Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time in active treatment: not reported Inclusion criteria: ≥ 18 years old able to read, write, and speak English scheduled to undergo radiation therapy written informed consent Eligibility criteria related to interest or ability, or both, to exercise: physical limitations that would prohibit participation in the yoga program (e.g. lymphedema or unresolved surgical issues) Exclusion criteria: major psychiatric diagnosis (e.g. a mood or thought disorder) Gender: female Current age, mean (SD, range): exercise group: 51.39 (7.97, 37.1 to 67.6) years control group: 4.02 [typographical error in table], (9.96, 31.8 to 67.9) years Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race, n (%): exercise group: black/African American, 1 (3%); white/Caucasian, 24 (80%); Latino/Hispanic, 3 (10%); Asian/Pacific Islander, 1 (3%); other, 1 (3%) control group: black/African American, 2 (7%); white/Caucasian, 23 (79%); Latino/Hispanic, 2 (7%); Asian/Pacific Islander, 0 (0%); other, 2 (7%) Education level, n (%): exercise group: completed high school or technical school, 6 (20%); some college, 6 (20%); higher education, 18 (60%) control group: completed high school or technical school, 4 (13%); some college, 5 (17%); higher education, 21 (70%) SES: not reported Employment status, n (%): exercise group: employed full‐time, 5 (17%); employed part‐time, 4 (13%); not employed, 21 (70%) control group: employed full‐time, 8 (27%); employed part‐time, 2 (7%); not employed, 20 (67%) Comorbidities: not reported Past exercise history: 4 patients in the exercise and 2 in the control group reported practicing yoga "currently" and 7 in the exercise and 9 in the control group practiced in the past On hormone therapy: not reported
Interventions	The number of participants assigned to the exercise intervention was unclear because 10 participants withdrew and their assignment was not reported. Of the remaining participants 30 were assigned to the exercise intervention, including: yoga, as defined by the VYASA yoga research foundation and university in Bengaluru, India. The multidimensional module of yoga included: preparatory warm‐up movements synchronized with breathing (10 minutes) maintenance in selected postures (forward‐, backward‐, and side‐bending asanas in sitting and standing positions, cobra posture, crocodile, and half‐shoulder stand with support) (25 minutes) deep relaxation technique (in corpse posture, 10 minutes) alternate‐nostril breathing (pranayama) (5 minutes) meditation (10 minutes) Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic and anaerobic Intensity of the experimental exercise intervention: mild Frequency: twice per week plus encouragement to practice daily at home Duration of individual sessions: 60 minutes Duration of exercise program: 6 weeks Total number of exercise sessions: 12 sessions Format: although designed to be group, the program ended up with most women having 1‐on‐1 sessions Facility: facility with encouragement to practice at home Professionally led by VYASA trained teachers Adherence: 15 participants (50%) attended all 12 classes; 8 (28%) attended 11 classes; and 1 (3%) attended 10 classes. 8 participants (28%) reported practicing yoga outside of class every day, 12 (40%) reported practicing more than twice per week, 8 (28%) reported practicing twice per week, and 1 (3%) reported not practicing outside the classes The number of participants assigned to the control intervention was unclear because 10 participants withdrew and their assignment was not reported. Of the remaining participants 31 were assigned to the control intervention, including: waiting list Contamination of control group: not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcome included: physical function, assessed using the Physical component scale of the MOS‐SF‐36 emotional state, assessed using the Mental component scale of the MOS‐SF‐36 Other outcomes were other subscales of the MOS SF‐36, including: general health physical function body pain role‐physical role emotional mental health social function vitality fatigue, measured using the BFI sleep, measured using the PSQI depression, measured using the CES‐D anxiety, measured using the STAI intrusiveness, measured using a subscale of the Impact of Events Scale avoidant, measured using a subscale of the Impact of events Scale benefit finding, measured using the Benefit Finding Scale Outcomes were measured at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months: exercise group: n = 30 at baseline, n = 27 at 1 week, n = 26 at 1 month, n = 27 at 3 months control group: n = 31 at baseline, n = 31 at 1 week, n = 27 at 1 month, n = 29 at 3 months Subgroup analysis: a number of subgroup analyses are reported for different times and different measures Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Country: US Funding: National Cancer Institute, Philanthropic support from the Integrative Medicine Program, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Participants were then randomly assigned… by use of minimization, a form of adaptive randomization"
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 conceal allocation to the intervention from the participants
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Allocation to the intervention was not concealed from the study personnel
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"An intent‐to‐treat approach was used to analyze the data." The authors used 2 different methods to impute missing data: simple mean imputation and multiple imputation
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There appears to be no selective reporting of outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appears to be free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias