Dalichau 1999.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | 120 participants. 1. Back School group n = 60. 2. Waiting‐list control group n = 60. Inclusion criteria: chronic, recurrent low back pain, age 20 to 40 years, no use of treatment because of acute back pain, no Back School experience, working full time, no expectation of an occupational disease at the time of enrolment. |
|
| Interventions | 1. Back School group: 6 sessions (6 to 8 different modules) of 90 minutes in 8 weeks including education (anatomy, pathology, ergonomic, optimal posture during work and other activities) and exercises (isometric and dynamic strength, stretching and relaxation exercises, work simulating). 2. Waiting‐list control group. |
|
| Outcomes | Pain: Pain Rating Scale. | |
| Notes | Occupational setting. Funding: N/A. |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The sequence generation procedure or the method of allocation were not mentioned. The title and abstract indicate that it is an RCT. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The sequence generation procedure or the method of allocation were not mentioned. The title and abstract indicate that it is an RCT. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No mention of any attempts to blind the participants |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | No mention of any attempts to blind the care providers |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | No mention of any attempts to blind the assessors |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | The percentage of withdrawals and dropouts was within the acceptable rate (less than 20%). |
| Intention‐to‐treat Analysis | Unclear risk | Not mentioned |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Not mentioned |
| Similarity of baseline characteristics? | Low risk | Demographic baseline characteristics of the study population are presented in Table 1. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar? | Unclear risk | Not mentioned |
| Compliance acceptable? | Unclear risk | Not mentioned |
| Timing outcome assessments similar? | Unclear risk | Not mentioned |