Brenes 2007.

Methods	RCT
Participants	Community‐dwelling and nursing home people over 65 with mild depression, recruited through newsletters, newspaper advertisements, distributing flyers at local nursing homes and public presentations Mean age 73.5 (SD 7.8) in exercise, 76.4 (6.4) in medication and 73.9 (5.8) in control group 62% women N = 37
Interventions	1. Faculty‐based group aerobic and resistance training for 60 minutes 3 days a week for 16 weeks (n = 14) 2. Once daily sertraline titrated to response (evaluated at weeks 2, 6, 10 and 14) (n = 11) 3. Control group: contacted at weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 to discuss general health status (n = 12)
Outcomes	HAM‐D
Notes	Method of randomisation not stated, states intention‐to‐treat analysis, however data unclear on how many participants dropped out of each group
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random allocation list
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method not described in the paper
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) participants	Unclear risk	Participants were not blinded to treatment allocation
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) those delivering intervention	Unclear risk	Those delivering the intervention were not blind, but it is not clear what influence this had on bias
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) outcome assessors	Low risk	Used HDRS as an outcome, assessors were blind to treatment allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The authors of the trial state that it is intention‐to‐treat, but no data are provided on the number who dropped out of the trial
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	It appears that all the prespecified outcomes are reported, but no protocol
Other bias	Unclear risk	unclear