Dimeo 1999.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: quasi‐randomized controlled trial Number randomized: 62; 29 to the exercise group and 33 to the control group Study start and stop dates: not reported Length of intervention: length of hospitalization Length of follow‐up: to end of the intervention
Participants	Type cancer, n: various exercise group: breast carcinoma, 13; metastatic breast carcinoma, 3; seminoma, 3; sarcoma/adenocarcinoma, 2; small cell lung carcinoma, 0; HD, 2; NHL, 4 control group: breast carcinoma, 12; metastatic breast carcinoma, 3; seminoma, 3; sarcoma/adenocarcinoma, 0; small cell lung carcinoma, 4; HD, 5; NHL, 5 Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time in active treatment: not reported Inclusion criteria: undergoing HDC followed by peripheral stem cell transplantation ages 18 to 60 years active malignancy confirmed histologically ability to understand written German Eligibility criteria related to interest or ability, or both, to exercise: none reported Exclusion criteria: associated psychiatric, muscular, cardiovascular, or pulmonary disease Gender, n: exercise group: male, 9; female, 18 control group: male, 13; female, 19 Current age, mean (SD, range) years: exercise group: 40 (11, 21 to 59) years control group: 40 (10, 20 to 56) 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, range): exercise group: 24.5 (3.8, 18 to 32) control group: 23.6 (2.9, 19 to 32)
Interventions	29 participants assigned to the exercise intervention, including: biking on a ergometer in the supine position following an interval training pattern of 1 minute biking followed by 1‐minute rest Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic Intensity of the experimental exercise intervention: participants "biked" for 1 minute with an intensity sufficient to reach a HR equivalent to at least 50% of the cardiac reserve, calculated as 220 ‐ age ‐ resting HR Frequency: daily Duration of individual sessions: 30 minutes Duration of exercise program: length of hospitalization Total number of exercise sessions: varied Format: individual Facility: facility Professionally supervised and instructed by study personnel Adherence: 82% (SD, 16%) of the hospitalization days 33 participants assigned to control group, including: usual care Contamination of control group: not reported
Outcomes	No primary outcome was identified. QoL outcomes included: Total mood disturbance, as assessed by the POMS, and subscales: depression fatigue vigor anger/hostility Psychological stress, as assessed by the SCL‐90 and subscales, including: somatization obsessive‐compulsive traits interpersonal sensitivity depression anxiety hostility phobic anxiety global psychological distress Outcomes were measured at baseline and discharge from hospital (~ 3 months): exercise group: n = 29 at baseline, n = 27 at end of intervention control group: n = 33 at baseline, n = 32 at end of intervention Subgroup analysis: none reported Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Country: Germany Funding: Nenad Keul Foundation, Freiburg, and Daimler‐Benz AG
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Quasi‐randomized
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	High risk	Analyses were conducted on an ITT basis; However, the treatment of missing data was not described. There was substantial attrition from the trial, especially in the intervention arm
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