Orooj 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Total duration of study: 6 weeks Details of any run‐in period: None stated Number of study centres and location: Single site. India Study setting: Hospital Withdrawals: None reported Date of study: Not stated
Participants	Number recruited: Randomised to intervention group: 14. Randomised to control group: 14 Number completed: Completed intervention group: 14. Completed control group: 14 Mean (SD) age: Intervention group 66 (8.4) years. Control group 67 (6.29) years Age range: Not stated Gender (M/F): Not stated Mean (SD) BMI: Intervention group 24 (4.3) kg/m2. Control group 23 (5.1) kg/m2 Severity of condition: All participants had a diagnosis of ACO. Severity not stated. Diagnostic criteria: Participants were diagnosed with ACO according to syndromic and spirometric features from the GINA/GOLD joint documents. Baseline lung function: Mean (SD) % predicted FEV1: Intervention group 65.1 (26.7)%. Control group 62.8 (15.6)% Smoking history: Mean (SD) smoking pack year: Intervention group 11 (3.25). Control group 11.0 (2.9) Asthma treatment: Not stated Inclusion criteria: Diagnosis of ACO Exclusion criteria: History of myocardial infarction, angina, congestive heart failure. Orthopaedic or cognitive impairment that would interfere with participation in rehabilitation. History of thoracic surgical intervention
Interventions	Intervention: 6‐week hospital‐based PRP. Exercise component supervised by physiotherapist. Endurance training on treadmill at 60% to 80% of VO2 peak 5 times per week. Resistance training of upper and lower limbs at 50% to 70% 1RM 3 times per week. Structured self‐management education programme including relaxation techniques, smoking cessation, and nutrition Comparison: Usual care Concomitant medications: Not stated Excluded medications: Not stated
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: Exercise capacity (6MWD). Quality of life (SGRQ). Lung function (spirometry). Bode Index Secondary outcomes: Not stated Time points reported: Baseline and end of intervention (6 weeks) Data reported as endpoint rather than as change from baseline. SMD (95% CI) between groups at end of intervention also reported.
Notes	Funding: No funding was received for the study. Notable conflicts of interest: No competing interests declared.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	“patients were randomly allocated using computer‐generated block randomization to either the PR group or to the control group”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details given
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Subjectively reported outcomes	High risk	Rehabilitation intervention. No mention of blinding of participants or study personnel.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Not subjectively reported outcomes	High risk	Rehabilitation intervention. No mention of blinding of participants or study personnel.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjectively reported outcomes	Unclear risk	No mention of blinding assessors.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Not subjectively assessed outcomes	Unclear risk	No mention of blinding assessors.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No dropouts. “All 28 participants enrolled in the investigation completed the study”.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No published protocol.
Other bias	Unclear risk	No data on gender of participants provided.