Singh 2005.

Methods	RCT
Participants	People responding to a postal questionnaire who had DSM‐IV depression or dysthymia Mean age 69 55% women N = 60
Interventions	1. Progressive resistance training at 80% of 1 repetition max (n = 20) 2. Resistance training at 20% of 1 repetition max (n = 20) 3. Usual care (n = 20) Each intervention group held 3 times a week for 8 weeks
Outcomes	1. Hamilton Rating Scale for depression 2. Geriatric Depression score
Notes	Not intention‐to‐treat (50/60 completed the study and were available for assessment) Outcome assessment blind
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Adequate. Sealed opaque envelopes open after baseline assessment
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) participants	Unclear risk	Participants not blind, unclear effect on bias
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) those delivering intervention	Unclear risk	Those delivering the intervention were not blind to treatment allocation, unclear effect on bias
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) outcome assessors	Low risk	HRSD performed by blinded outcome assessors
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	6/60 dropped out (2 from the high‐dose, 3 from the low‐dose and 1 from the usual care group)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Prespecified outcomes in paper were reported, but no protocol
Other bias	Unclear risk	Unclear