Morone 2012.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | 75 participants. 1. Back School group n = 25. 2. Perceptive rehabilitation group n = 25. 3. Control group n = 25. Inclusion criteria: people aged 18 to 75 years with chronic non‐specific low back pain persisting for at least 3 months. Exclusion criteria: acute pain, LBP due to specific cause (fracture, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation, and lumbar stenosis), presence of rheumatological, neurological or oncological concomitant disease, back surgery before study, cognitive impairment (Mini‐Mental State Examination score < 24), and pregnancy. |
|
| Interventions | 1. Back School group: 10 sessions for 4 weeks. Information on anatomy, causes of LBP, ergonomics, exercises, and advice on physical activity. 2. Perceptive rehabilitation group: 20 sessions x 45 minutes for 4 weeks 3. Control group: same medical and pharmacological assistance as the other groups. |
|
| Outcomes | 1. Pain: visual analogue scale. 2. Pain: McGill Pain Questionnaire. 3. Disability: Oswestry Disability Index. 4. Disability: Waddell Disability index. |
|
| Notes | Secondary care setting. Funding: this research received no specific grant from any commercial or public funding agency. |
|
| 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, abstract, and flowchart 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, abstract, and flowchart 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 | The study is described as a single‐blind RCT, but there is not enough information to determine who was blinded |
| 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 | No information about intention‐to‐treat analysis |
| 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? | Low risk | Balanced for both groups |
| Compliance acceptable? | Low risk | Compliance was acceptable based on the reported intensity/dosage, duration, number, and frequency for both the intervention and control groups |
| Timing outcome assessments similar? | Low risk | All important outcomes assessments for both groups were measured at the same time |