Skip to main content
. 2010 Jul 7;2010(7):CD002014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002014.pub3

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