Sahin 2011.

Methods	RCT
Participants	146 participants. 1. Back School group n = 73. 2. Exercise group n = 73. Inclusion criteria: non‐specific low back pain for longer than 12 weeks without neurological deficits. Exclusion criteria: people who had continuous pain, age ≤ 18 years, those who had already attended the Back School programme, those who had previously undergone surgery, who had structural anomalies, spinal cord compressions, severe instabilities, severe osteoporosis, acute infections, severe cardiovascular or metabolic diseases, who were pregnant, and those with a body mass index above 30 kg/m2.
Interventions	1. Back School group: 4 sessions x 60 minutes for 2 weeks, participants received exercise, physical treatment modalities, and a Back School programme. 2. Exercise group: received exercise and physical treatment modalities.
Outcomes	1. Pain: visual analogue scale. 2. Disability: Oswestry Disability Index.
Notes	Funding: N/A.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Concealed randomisation was conducted using sealed, opaque envelopes coded according to a computerised random number generator.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Concealed randomisation was conducted using sealed, opaque envelopes coded according to a computerised random number generator.
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	Low risk	All participants were examined by the same physician, who was blind to the type of therapy.
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?	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.