Have 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: cluster‐RCT
Participants	School inclusion criteria: schools in Danish municipalities that did not have a structured programme that incorporated PA in the classroom School exclusion criteria: — Student inclusion criteria: — Student exclusion criteria: physical disability, no written parental consent Setting: school Age group: children Gender distribution: females and males Country where trial was performed: Denmark
Interventions	Intervention: classroom‐based PA incorporated into math lessons for 1 school year. Subjects received an average of 6 math lessons of 45 minutes/week. Each lesson included at least 15 minutes of PA, with limited sedentary time. Teachers attended a series of workshops to provide them with the skills to implement task‐relevant physical activity into math teaching  Comparator: children in control schools received regular classroom instruction, also with an average of 6 math lessons of 45 minutes/week. Math teachers in the control schools were asked not to make any changes to their usual teaching methods before study endpoint measurements Duration of intervention: 10 months Duration of follow‐up: 10 months Number of schools: 12 Theoretical framework: theory of embodied cognition
Outcomes	PA duration BMI
Study registration	NCT02488460 (retrospectively registered)
Publication details	Language of publication: English  Funding: non‐commercial funding (charitable trust) Publication status: peer‐reviewed journal
Stated aim for study	"We designed a randomised controlled trial with the primary objective of investigating how math achievement was affected by task‐relevant PA incorporated into math teaching for 7‐year‐old school children"
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote from publication: "randomisation was performed by random selection of sealed envelopes containing the intervention allocation stratified by municipality, in the presence of school leaders, municipality representatives and study researchers"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote from publication: "randomisation was performed by random selection of sealed envelopes containing the intervention allocation stratified by municipality, in the presence of school leaders, municipality representatives and study researchers"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote from publication: "the research assistants were blinded to the randomisation result for measurement of the outcomes and for data entry"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Anthropometrics, Fitness	Low risk	Quote from publication: "during the 9‐month intervention period, the dropout rate was 13.7% in the control group and 8.8% in the intervention group, which was not statistically significant. Dropouts were mainly attributed to subjects not present at follow‐up trials due to sickness or moving to a different city as well as subjects not being able to complete the test due to injury (e.g. the fitness test)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Physical activity and sedentary time	Low risk	Quote from publication: "during the 9‐month intervention period, the dropout rate was 13.7% in the control group and 8.8% in the intervention group, which was not statistically significant. Dropouts were mainly attributed to subjects not present at follow‐up trials due to sickness or moving to a different city as well as subjects not being able to complete the test due to injury (e.g. the fitness test)"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: all main outcomes reported
Cluster RCT ‐ Recruitment bias	Low risk	Comment: all baseline data were measured prior to randomisation [author communication]
Cluster RCT ‐ Baseline imbalance	Low risk	Quote from publication: "there were no significant differences at baseline between intervention and control group in any descriptive characteristics except height"
Cluster RCT ‐ Loss of clusters	Low risk	Comment: no clusters lost
Cluster RCT ‐ Incorrect analysis	Low risk	Quote from publication: "because of the clustered nature of the data, schools were included as random effects in the analyses and the Kenward‐Roger degrees of freedom approximation was used"