Table 2.
Summary of findings of comparison I (perceptual proprioceptive training versus inactive controls or other exercise)
| Patient or population: adults with non-specific chronic low-back pain; Settings: primary and secondary health care centres | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | Illustrative means (95% CI) | N (studies) | GRADE | Comments | |
| Control group | Intervention group | ||||
| Comparison 1.1 | Inactive control | pPrT | |||
| Pain intensity VAS (0–10) short-term follow-up | The mean pain intensity of the control group was 7.32 points. | The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 3.16 points lower (4.7 to 1.95 lower). | 50 (1 study) | ++00low2,3,§ | Significant |
| Pain intensity VAS (0–10) long-term follow-up | The mean pain intensity of the control group was 7.48 points. | The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 3.04 points lower (4.38 to 1.70 lower). | 45 (1 study) | ++00low2,3 | Significant |
| Back specific functional status ODI short-term follow-up | The mean pain intensity of the control group was 24.32 points. | The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 4.48 points lower (11.83 lower to 2.87 higher). | 50 (1 study) | ++00low2,3 | Non-significant |
| Back specific functional status ODI long-term follow-up | The mean pain intensity of the control group was 26.08 points. | The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 6.38 points lower (14.98 lower to 2.22 higher). | 45 (1 study) | ++00low1,3 | Non-significant |
| Comparison 1.2 | Other exercise | pPrT | N (studies) | GRADE | Comments |
| Pain intensity various scales short-term follow-up | The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 1.15 standard deviations lower (2.93 to 0.63 lower). | 80 (2 studies) | 000 + very low2,3,4 | ||
| Pain intensity various scales long-term follow-up | The mean pain intensity of the control group was 4.44 points. | The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 0.01 points higher (1.55 lower to 1.57 higher). | 45 (1 study) | ++00 low2,3,§ | |
| Back specific functional status various scales short-term follow-up | The mean ODI score of the control group was 19.04 points. | The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 0.8 points higher (5.80 lower to 7.40 higher). | 50 (1 study) | ++00 low2,3,§ | |
| Back specific functional status various scales long-term follow-up | The mean ODI score of the control group was 14.72 points. | The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 4.98 points higher (2.68 lower to 12.64 higher). | 45(1 study) | ++00 low2,3,§ | |
N = total number of patients; CI = Confidence Interval; 1Serious limitations in study design (i.e. >25% of participants from studies with high risk of bias); 2Serious imprecision (i.e. total number of participants <300 for each outcome or only one study available for comparison); 3Indirectness of population (e.g. only one study), intervention (applicability) and outcome measures; 4Serious inconsistency (i.e. significant statistical heterogeneity or opposite direction of effects). §Only one study, consistency cannot be evaluated.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.