Mutrie 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 203; 101 to the exercise group and 102 to the control group Study start and stop dates: January 2004 to January 2005 Length of intervention: 12 weeks Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Type cancer: breast cancer Stage, n (%): exercise group: Stage I, 17 (17.2%); Stage II, 74 (74.7%); Stage III, 8 (8.1%) control group: Stage I, 16 (15.7%); Stage II, 77 (75.5%); Stage III, 9 (8.8%) Time since cancer diagnosis, mean (SD) days: exercise group: 162.2 (78.0) days control group: 161.9 (69.8) days Time in active treatment: not reported Inclusion criteria: Stage 0 to III breast cancer Eligibility criteria related to interest or ability, or both, to exercise: regular exercise Exclusion criteria: concurrent unstable cardiac, hypertensive, or respiratory disease cognitive dysfunction Gender: female Current age, mean (SD) years: exercise group: 51.3 (10.3) years control group: 51.8 (8.7) years Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race: not reported Education level: not reported SES: not reported Employment status; n (%): exercise group: employed full/part time, 16 (16.2%); sick, 49 (49.5%); housewife, 14 (14.1%); retired, 20 (20.2%) control group: employed full/part time, 13 (12.7%); sick, 62 (60.8%); housewife, 12 (11.8%); retired, 15 (14.7%) Comorbidities: not reported Past exercise history: not reported On hormone therapy: not reported Weight, mean (SD) kg: exercise group: 70.2 (12.5) kg control group: 71.5 (16.4) kg BMI, mean (SD) exercise group: 27.3 (5.2) control group: 27.5 (6.0)
Interventions	101 participants assigned to the exercise intervention, including: program based on guidelines for prescription of exercise for cancer patients and survivors. The classes consisted of a warm‐up of 5 to 10 minutes, 20 minutes of exercise (e.g. walking, cycling, low level aerobics, muscle strengthening exercises, or circuits of specifically tailored exercises), and a cool‐down and relaxation period usual care from the healthcare team support in form of group discussions following exercise session in which a specific theme was covered Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic Intensity of the experimental exercise intervention: moderate; 50% to 75% of age adjusted maximum HR Frequency: 3 times per week Duration of individual sessions: 45 minutes Duration of exercise program: 12 weeks Total number of exercise sessions: 36 sessions Format: 2 group and 1 individual session per week Facility: group session were facility based and individual session home based Professionally led by trained exercise specialists Adherence: not reported 102 participants assigned to control group, including: usual care from the healthcare team Contamination of control group: not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcomes included: QoL as assessed by the FACT‐G questionnaire Other outcomes included: depression, assessed using the BDI emotional state, assessed using the PANAS BMI 7‐day recall of physical activity, measured using the SPAQ performance in a 12‐MWT score on a shoulder mobility test Outcomes were measured at baseline, at end of the intervention (12 weeks), and 6 months: exercise group: n = 99 at baseline, n = 82 at 12 weeks, n = 82 at 6 months control group: n = 102 at baseline, n = 92 at 12 weeks, n = 95 at 6 months Subgroup analysis: none Adverse events: none reported
Notes	Country: UK Funding: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"The randomisation was stratified by hospital and treatment at baseline (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or combination) and used randomised permuted blocks of length four and six (that is, for sequences of four or six women in each hospital‐treatment combination, exactly half were allocated to each group)"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Randomisation was done by telephone to an interactive voice response system"
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	Unclear risk	"We took steps to blind the evaluation of outcomes by having questionnaire responses in sealed envelopes and ensuring that outcome measures were taken by researchers who were not involved in exercise classes"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	"We did the analysis on an intention‐to‐treat basis, in the sense that we took no account of adherence to the intervention. We used all available data." However, 19 participants were not included in the analyses at the 12 weeks, including 12 lost to follow‐up (including 2 excluded from the analyses since they were taking tamoxifen) and 7 not assessed. In the control group, 3 participants were lost to follow‐up and 7 not assessed. At the 6‐month time period, 7 were not assessed in the exercise group and 4 in the control group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There is no evidence of 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