Summary of findings 3. Back School compared with passive physiotherapy for low back pain.
| Back School compared with passive physiotherapy for low back pain | |||||
|
Patient or population: people with low back pain. Intervention: Back School Comparison: passive physiotherapy | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk* | ||||
| Passive physiotherapy | Back School | ||||
| pain: short‐term follow‐up (< 3 months) Multiple scales: scale from 0 to 100 (worse pain) | The mean pain at short‐term follow‐up ranged across control groups from 7.1 to 88 points. | The mean pain (short‐ term) in the intervention groups was 1.96 higher (9.51 lower to 13.43 higher). | MD 1.96 (‐9.51 to 13.43) | 290 participants (3 studies) | ⊝⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 |
|
pain ‐ intermediate‐term follow up (3‐6 months) Multiple scales: scale from 0 to 100 (worse pain) |
The mean pain at intermediate‐term follow‐up ranged across control groups from 13.3 to 65 points. | The mean pain (intermediate‐term) in the intervention groups was 16.89 lower (66.56 lower to 32.79 higher). | MD ‐16.89 (‐66.56 to 32.79) | 290 participants (3 studies) | ⊝⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 |
|
pain ‐ long‐term follow‐up (>6 months) Multiple scales: scale from 0 to 100 (worse pain) |
The mean pain at long‐term follow‐up ranged across control groups from 11.6 to 60.5 points. | The mean pain (long‐ term) in the intervention groups was 12.86 lower (61.22 lower to 35.50 higher). | MD ‐12.86 (‐61.22 to 35.50) | 291 participants (3 studies) | ⊝⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 |
|
Disability ‐ short‐term follow‐up (<3 months) Multiple scales: scale from 0 to 100 (worse disability) |
The mean disability at short‐term follow‐up ranged across control groups from 9.1 to 60 points. | The mean disability at short‐term follow‐up in the intervention groups was 2.57 higher (15.88 lower to 21.01 higher). | MD 2.57 (‐15.88 to 21.01) | 180 participants (2 studies) | ⊝⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 |
|
Disability ‐ intermediate‐term follow up (3‐6 months) Multiple scales: scale from 0 to 100 (worse disability) |
The mean disability at intermediate‐term follow‐up ranged across control groups from 10.4 to 53 points. | The mean disability at short‐term follow‐up in the intervention groups was 6.88 higher (‐4.86 lower to 18.63 higher). | MD 6.88 (‐4.86 to 18.63). | 180 participants (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,4 |
|
Disability ‐ long‐term follow‐up (>6 months) Multiple scales: scale from 0 to 100 (worse disability) |
The mean disability at long‐term follow‐up ranged across control groups from 10.4 to 46 points. | The mean disability at long‐term follow‐up in the intervention groups was 9.60 higher (3.65 higher to 15.54 higher). | MD 9.60 (3.65 to 15.54) | 180 participants (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,4 |
| Adverse events Not reported | |||||
| Work status Not reported | |||||
| 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; MD: mean difference | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High‐quality evidence: There are consistent findings among at least 75% of randomised controlled trials with low risk of bias; consistent, direct, and precise data; and no known or suspected publication biases. Further research is unlikely to change either the estimate or our confidence in the results. Moderate‐quality evidence: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low‐quality evidence: 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 evidence: We are very uncertain about the results. No evidence: We identified no randomised controlled trials that addressed this outcome. | |||||
1 Downgraded one level due to imprecision (fewer than 400 participants, in total). 2 Downgraded one level due to risk of bias (> 25% of the participants were from studies with a high risk of bias). 3 Downgraded one level due to clear inconsistency of results. 4 Downgraded one level due to publication bias.