Klaber Moffett 1986.

Methods	RCT
Participants	78 participants. 1. Back School treatment group n = 40. 2. Exercises group n = 38. Inclusion criteria: chronic (6 months or more) LBP with or without lower limb pain. Exclusion criteria: history of spinal surgery; person concurrently attending physiotherapy treatment; and evidence of underlying disease, such as fracture, ankylosing spondylitis, or multiple myeloma.
Interventions	1. Back School treatment group: Swedish Back School, 3 sessions containing education on anatomy and body mechanics, semi‐Fowler position, ergonomic counselling, and exercises aimed at strengthening the abdominal muscles. 2. Exercises group.
Outcomes	1. Pain: visual analogue scale. 2. Disability: Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire.
Notes	Primary care setting. Funding: N/A.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The participants were randomly allocated to 2 groups and were assessed by a rheumatologist who was not aware of treatment allocated.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	The participants were randomly allocated to 2 groups and were assessed by a rheumatologist who was not aware of treatment allocated.
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	It was unclear if the published report included all expected outcomes.
Similarity of baseline characteristics?	Low risk	Based on Table 1, participants did not differ in baseline characteristics.
Co‐interventions avoided or similar?	Unclear risk	There were few reported co‐interventions in the study.
Compliance acceptable?	Low risk	Compliance was acceptable based on the reported intensity/dosage, duration, number, and frequency for both the intervention and control group.
Timing outcome assessments similar?	Unclear risk	Not mentioned