Friedrich 1998.
Methods | RCT; 'randomly assigned' | |
Participants | 98 patients, aged between 20 and 60 years, with back pain of at least 4 months duration or three episodes of LBP in the last 6 months. Criteria for exclusion were cardiovascular diseases, acute lumbar radicular lesions, previous low‐back surgery, other lumbar spine pathologies, spinal stenosis, high degree of instability, psychiatric disorder, pregnancy, and patients involved in litigation. | |
Interventions | Behavioural treatment (I): Individual exercise program + motivational program (counselling and information, reinforcement techniques, treatment contract, exercise diary), 10 25‐min sessions (N = 49) Reference treatment (R): Individual exercise program, 10 25‐min sessions (N = 49) |
|
Outcomes | Patients in the (I) group were significantly more likely to attend their exercise therapy appointments. Mean disability (low‐back outcome score) and pain intensity (VAS) pre‐treatment (I): 42.5, 50.2; (R): 42.8, 54.5; after four months (I): 57.2, 32.7; (R): 51.0, 39.8; and after 12 months (I): 58.9, 26.4; (R): 50.9, 41.9. There was a significant improvement in favour of (I). No significant differences were found in motivation scores, self‐reported compliance with long‐term exercise, or modified Waddell score. | |
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Adequate sequence generation? | Unclear risk | 'randomly assigned' |
Allocation concealment? | Unclear risk | Unclear |
Blinding? All outcomes ‐ patients? | High risk | not reported |
Blinding? All outcomes ‐ providers? | High risk | not reported |
Blinding? All outcomes ‐ outcome assessors? | High risk | not reported |
Incomplete outcome data addressed? All outcomes ‐ drop‐outs? | High risk | Figure 1 |
Incomplete outcome data addressed? All outcomes ‐ ITT analysis? | Unclear risk | Unclear from text |
Free of selective reporting? | Low risk | pre‐specified outcomes reported |
Similarity of baseline characteristics? | Low risk | "There were no significant differences between the motivational and control groups on socio‐demographic variables, pain histories, disability scores, and working ability data at study entry." |
Co‐interventions avoided or similar? | Unclear risk | Unclear from text |
Compliance acceptable? | Low risk | Table 1, same in both groups |
Timing outcome assessments similar? | Low risk | Figure 1 |