Nentwig 1990.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | 74 participants. 1. Back School group n = 32. 2. Waiting‐list group n = 42. Inclusion criteria: degenerative LBP (on a waiting list for a Back School). 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: 4 sessions x 2 hours for 4 weeks. 2. Waiting list. |
|
| Outcomes | 1. Pain (own instrument). | |
| Notes | Setting not specified. 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 | Unclear risk | Not mentioned |
| Intention‐to‐treat Analysis | Low risk | Not mentioned |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | It was unclear if the published report included all expected outcomes. |
| Similarity of baseline characteristics? | Unclear risk | Not mentioned |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar? | Unclear risk | Not mentioned |
| 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. |