Skip to main content
. 2014 Sep 2;2014(9):CD000963. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000963.pub3

Streibelt 2009.

Methods RCT conducted in Germany
Participants Patients referred to rehabilitation centre from work insurance provider, limited work ability due to chronic musculoskeletal disorder. 222 patients randomised, 16.7% female, average age 45.8 years, mean duration of pain not reported
Interventions MBR (FCEMR): 3 weeks inpatient program, 3‐4 hours treatment/day. Physical therapy, exercises, massage, education, relaxation. Focus on work‐specific skills and functional capacity with operant behavioural approach. Coping skills training
Physical (MR, Control): 3 weeks inpatient program, 3‐4 hours treatment/day. Physical therapy, exercises, massage, education, relaxation
Outcomes Disability (PDI), Work (weeks off‐work, % return to work)
 Follow‐ups: LT (1 year)
Notes Subgroup analyses: Mid‐intensity intervention, Low baseline symptom intensity (<60% of maximum scale score)
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk pg.4 Study design. "A computer‐generated randomization list was created by a statistician"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk pg.4 Study design. "Randomized allocation of the patients in either the treatment or the control group was done by an external institute"
Blinding of participants High risk Not possible
Blinding of clinicians High risk Not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Not possible; patient reported outcome
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk pg.7 Sample. >50% dropout rate
Intention to treat analysis Low risk pg.6 Analysis. "Cases were analysed as intended to treat"
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No protocol
Comparability of groups at baseline High risk Baseline characteristics. Groups comparable on relevant demographic and clinical variables
Compliance Unclear risk Not stated
Cointerventions Unclear risk Not stated
Timing of assessment Low risk Fig 1. 1 year follow‐up