Segal 2001.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 123; 40 to the home‐based exercise group, 42 to the supervised exercise group, and 41 to the control group Study start and stop dates: not reported Length of intervention: 26 weeks Length of follow‐up: to end of the intervention
Participants	Type cancer: breast cancer, Stages I and II Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time in active treatment: within 2 weeks Inclusion criteria: Stages I and II breast cancer within 2 weeks of the initiation of prescribed adjuvant therapy (radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, or chemotherapy) Eligibility criteria related to interest or ability, or both, to exercise: treating oncologist believed that exercise was not indicated Exclusion criteria: receiving only alternative or dose‐intensive chemotherapy regimens severe cardiac disease uncontrolled hypertension (160/95 mmHg blood pressure) Gender: female Current age, mean (SD) years: home‐based exercise group: 51.0 (8.7) years supervised exercise group: 51.4 (8.7) years control group: 50.3 (8.7) 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; "physically active", %: home‐based exercise group: 60% supervised exercise group: 50% control group: 47.6%
Interventions	40 participants assigned to the home‐based exercise intervention and 40 to the supervised exercise intervention. Both groups included: instructions for monitoring exercise intensity and completing an exercise diary, along with a standardized series of warm‐up and cool‐down exercises and a progressive walking program The home‐based (self‐directed) exercise group also included: home exercise prescription contact by telephone every 2 weeks during the 26‐week training period to check on progress and  identify barriers to exercise The supervised exercise group also included: a supervised exercise program with a 7‐ to 10‐minute warm‐up, walking at prescribed pace, and standard cool‐down. Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): aerobic Intensity of the experimental exercise intervention: 50% to 60% of the predicted maximal oxygen uptake Frequency: home‐based: 5 times per week supervised: 3 times per week in the facility and asked to exercise at home 2 days per week Duration of individual sessions: not reported Duration of exercise program: 26 weeks Total number of exercise sessions: 130 sessions Format: individual Facility: both home and facility Professionally led by an exercise specialist Adherence: not reported 41 participants assigned to control group, including: general advice from the oncologist about the benefits of exercise and a suggestion to participants to exercise if they felt well enough
Outcomes	Primary outcome included: change in physical functioning, assessed by measuring change in the physical functioning subscale of  the MOS SF‐36 Other outcomes included: global HRQoL, assessed using the other subscales of MOS SF‐36, FACT‐G, and FACT‐B aerobic capacity body weight Outcomes were measured at baseline, 13 weeks, and 26 weeks: home‐based exercise group: n = 40 at baseline, n = 40 at 13 weeks, n = 40 at 26 weeks (imputed values carried forward, so even though withdrawals, analyses included all participants) supervised exercise group: n = 40 at baseline, n = 40 at 13 weeks, n = 40 at 26 weeks (imputed values carried forward, so even though withdrawals, analyses included all participants) control group: n = 41 at baseline, n = 41 at 13 weeks, n = 41 at 26 weeks (imputed values carried forward, so even though withdrawals, analyses included all participants) Subgroup analysis: treated with chemotherapy versus other treatment Adverse events: none reported
Notes	Country: Canada Funding: National Cancer Institute of Canada, CCS
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random numbers table
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	Values carried forward for withdrawals, and withdrawals balanced across groups: home‐based exercise, 7; supervised, 8; control, 7
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