Summary of findings 1. McKenzie therapy compared with minimal intervention for (sub)acute low back pain.

McKenzie therapy compared with minimal intervention for acute and subacute low back pain
Patient or population: patients with non‐specific acute and subacute low back pain Settings: primary care Intervention: McKenzie therapy Comparison: minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention)
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		No of participants (trials)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Minimal intervention	McKenzie therapy
Pain intensity: short‐term (closest to 2 weeks) NRS (scale from 0‐100, 0 is no pain)	The mean pain in the control group was 25.00 pointsa	The mean pain in the intervention group was 7.30 points better (12.04 points better to 2.56 better)	328 participants (2 trials)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb,c	McKenzie may result in a slight reduction in pain at short‐term.
Pain intensity: intermediate‐term (closest to 3 months) NRS (scale from 0‐100, 0 is no pain)	The mean pain in the control group was 32.00 pointsd	The mean pain in the intervention group was 5.00 points better (14.29 points better to 4.29worse)	180 participants (1 trial)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb,c	McKenzie may not reduce pain at intermediate‐term.
Disability: short‐term (closest to 2 weeks) RMDQ (scale from 0‐100, 0 is no disability)	The mean disability in the control group was 21.25 pointsa	The mean disability in the intervention group was 2.74 points better (7.52 points better to 2.04 worse)	328 participants (2 trials)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb,c	McKenzie may not reduce disability at short‐term.
Disability: intermediate‐term (closest to 3 months) RMDQ (scale from 0‐100, 0 is no disability)	The mean disability in the control group was 18.69 pointsd	The mean disability in the intervention group was 0.87 points better (7.31 points better to 5.57 worse)	180 participants (1 trial)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb,c	McKenzie may not reduce disability at intermediate‐term.
Adverse events	See comment	See comment	‐	‐	None of the included trials measured adverse events
*The basis for the assumed risk is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; NRS: numerical rating scale; RMDQ: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty; we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

^aMean value in minimal intervention group at short‐term follow‐up from Machado 2010
^bDowngraded by one level due to risk of bias (lack of information about random allocation and lack of blinding of outcome assessment)
^cDowngraded by one level due to imprecision (wide 95% CI, including the possibility of a small or no effect and important benefit)
^dMean value in minimal intervention group at intermediate‐term follow‐up from Cherkin 1998