| Methods |
RCT, subjects were placed by a physiotherapist in 1 of 3 groups according to a randomization procedure decided before the experiment (method of randomization not described). |
| Participants |
62 participants (29 male, 33 female, aged 21‐61 years) selected from an orthopaedic outpatient clinic. Participants had LBP and sciatic pain radiating down 1 leg for more than 1 month' duration. 32 participants had a history of pain > 1 year. Participants strongly suspicious of the presence of a disc prolapse were not accepted. |
| Interventions |
T) Traction: intermittent pelvic traction with a Tru‐Trac traction table for 20 min with 4‐sec hold intervals and a 2‐sec rest. Traction force was correlated to the participant's weight according to the given figures. Instruction on Fowler position, strengthening exercises, regimental dispositions, every day at home.
Comparison interventions:
C1) Conventional treatment, hot packs for 15 min, massage and mobilizing exercises.
C2) Control, hot packs for a length of time corresponding with the mean for the other methods of treatment. |
| Outcomes |
Global measure ‐ participants opinion of noticeable improvement: T) 90% (18 of 20 participants), C1) 48% (10 of 21 participants), C2) 67% (14 of 21 participants).
Need for analgesics before, after the treatments (of the 30 that were taking pills before the treatment): T) 9, 0; C1) 12, 7; C2) 9, 4.
Traction appears to have reduced the subjective symptoms of the participants to a higher degree than the other methods. |
| Notes |
Authors stress the need for sufficient pull and duration of traction in order to influence the mechanical conditions of the spine effectively.
No apparent follow‐up after the treatment had finished (i.e. other than post‐treatment). |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
No mention of randomization procedure. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
No information provided on allocation concealment. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes ‐ participants |
High risk |
No mention of attempts to blind the participants. It is unlikely that the participants were blinded. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes ‐ providers |
High risk |
No mention of attempts to blind the care providers. It is unlikely that the care providers were blinded. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes ‐ outcome assessors |
High risk |
Both the care provider and a blinded outcome assessor took part in the assessment of the outcome measures. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes ‐ loss to follow‐up |
Low risk |
4 participants (6.5%) did not complete follow‐up evaluation. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes ‐ intention to treat analysis |
Low risk |
Intention‐to‐treat analysis was used. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Published results included all prespecified outcomes. |
| Group similarity at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
All 3 groups were similar at baseline. |
| Influence of co‐interventions (performance bias) |
High risk |
The traction group received isometrical training in conjunction with traction. The comparison group was not treated with isometrical training. |
| Compliance with interventions (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not mentioned. |
| Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias) |
Low risk |
All important outcome assessments for all intervention groups were measured at the same time. |
