Jarden 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 42; 21 to the exercise group and 21 to the control group Study start and stop dates: April 2005 to November 2007 Length of intervention: length of hospitalization Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Type cancer, n: hematologic malignancies exercise group: CML, 4; AML 9; acute lymphocytic (lymphoblastic) leukemia; 3; aplastic anemia, 3; myelodysplasia, 2; Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, 0; paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, 0; myelofibrosis, 1 control group: CML, 5; AML 7; acute lymphocytic (lymphoblastic) leukemia; 5; aplastic anemia, 1; myelodysplasia, 1; Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, 1; paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, 1; myelofibrosis, 0 Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time in active treatment: not reported Inclusion criteria: 18 to 65 years old scheduled for a myeloablative allo‐HSCT Eligibility criteria related to interest or ability, or both, to exercise: none reported Exclusion criteria: prior HSCT recent cardiovascular or pulmonary disease abnormal electrocardiogram psychiatric disorder motor, musculoskeletal, or neurologic dysfunction requiring walking aides bony metastasis Gender, n (%): exercise group: male, 13 (61.9%); female, 8 (38.1%) control group: male, 13 (61.9%); female, 8 (38.1%) Current age, mean (SD) years: exercise group: 40.9 (13.3) years control group: 37.4 (11.1) years Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race: not reported Education level, university or secondary school, n (%): exercise group: 10 (47.6%) control group: 13 (61.9%) SES: not reported Employment status, full‐time, employed, n (%): exercise group: 16 (76.2%) control group: 19 (90.5%) Comorbidities: not reported Past exercise history, baseline physical activity level I + II, n (%) exercise group: 15 (71.4%) control group: 14 (66.7%) On hormone therapy: not reported BMI, mean (SD) exercise group: 27.5 (5.5) control group: 24.73 (5.2)
Interventions	21 participants assigned to the exercise intervention, including: multimodal exercise program, including: stationary cycling, 15 to 30 minutes for 5 days per week dynamic and stretching exercises, 5 days per week resistance training, 3 days per week progressive relaxation on 2 days per week psychoeducation Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic and anaerobic Intensity of the experimental exercise intervention: not to exceed 75% of maximal HR Frequency: 5 days per week Duration of individual sessions: 1 hour ± 10 minutes Duration of exercise program: length of hospitalization Total number of exercise sessions: varied Format: individual Facility: hospital Professionally led by a research investigator Adherence: not reported 21 participants assigned to control group, including: usual care Contamination of control group: not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcome: physical capacity, assessed by measuring the VO2 max Other outcomes included: physiologic outcomes included: muscle strength functional performance HRQoL outcomes included: global HRQoL measured using the EORTC QLQ‐C30 cancer–specific QoL and fatigue, assessed using the FACT‐An anxiety, assessed using the HADS depression, assessed using the HADS Outcomes were measured at baseline, postintervention, 3 months, and 6 months: exercise group: n = 21 at baseline, n = 17 post‐intervention, n = 17 at 3 months, n = 13 at 6 months control group: n = 21 at baseline, n = 17 at end of hospitalization, n = 13 at 3 months, n = 13 at 6 months Subgroup analysis: none Adverse events: exercise group: 1 participant developed complications and 2 died control group: 1 participant developed complications and 1 died
Notes	Country: Denmark Funding: The Lundbeck Foundation, The Novo Nordic Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, The Copenhagen Hospital Corporation, The Danish Nursing Society
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"...using the computerized Clinical International Trial Management System"
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	Study personnel and outcome assessors were not masked or blinded to the study interventions
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Used ITT with assumption that data were missing at random
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