de Oliveira 2010.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 55; 28 to the exercise group and 27 to the control group Study start and stop dates: June 2005 to September 2006 Length of intervention: length of radiation Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Type cancer: breast cancer Time in cancer diagnosis: not reported Time in active treatment: not reported Inclusion criteria: invasive breast cancer indication of radiation therapy postsurgery Eligibility criteria related to interest or ability, or both, to exercise: medical contraindication Exclusion criteria: inability to complete questionnaires Gender: female Current age, range: 40 to 60 years Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race: not reported Education level, %: primary, 60%; middle, 20%; secondary, 20% SES: not reported Employment status: not reported Comorbidities: not reported Past exercise history: not reported On hormone therapy: about 50% were on hormone therapy
Interventions	28 participants assigned to the exercise intervention, including: kinesotherapy of the upper limb, including 19 different exercises Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic Intensity of the experimental exercise intervention: not reported Frequency: not reported Duration of individual sessions: 45 minutes Duration of exercise program: length of radiation therapy Total number of exercise sessions: about 18 sessions Format: individual Facility: facility Professionally led: not reported Adherence: not reported 27 participants assigned to control group, including: usual care Contamination of control group: not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcome: amplitude of movement, assessed using Gosselnik Other outcomes included: global HRQoL, assessed using FACT‐B and subscales: PWB social/family well‐being FWB breast subscale EWB Outcomes were measured at baseline, end of treatment (~ 3 months), and 6 months: exercise group: n = 28 at baseline, n = 28 at 3 months, n = 24 at 6 months control group: n = 27 at baseline, n = 27 at 3 months, n = 25 at 6 months Subgroup analysis: none reported Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Country: Brazil Funding: FAEPEX UNICAMP, pelo financiamento e Bolsa CAPES
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"greada por computador"
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	The outcome assessor was blinded to the study allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient details provided to determine whether there was any attrition
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