Summary of findings 2. High‐intensity exercise versus low‐intensity exercise programmes four to six weeks after lumbar disc surgery.
| High‐intensity exercise compared with low‐intensity exercise for participants four to six weeks after lumbar disc surgery | |||||
|
Patient or population: patients four to six weeks after lumbar disc surgery Settings: primary care facilities and outpatient clinics Intervention: high‐intensity exercise Comparison: low‐intensity exercise | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Low‐intensity exercise | High‐intensity exercise | ||||
| Pain (short term) VAS Follow‐up: mean three months | Mean pain (short term) in the control groups was 25.64 VAS points | Mean pain (short term) in the intervention groups was 10.67 lower (17.04 to 4.3 lower)1 | 103 (two studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4 | |
| Function (short term) RDQ or ODI Follow‐up: mean three months | Mean function (short term) ranged across control groups from 6.1 RDQ points to 11.65 ODI points | Mean function (short term) in the intervention groups was 0.77 standard deviations lower (1.17 to 0.36 lower)5 | 103 (two studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,4 | |
| Functional status (long term) | NA | NA | NA | no evidence | This outcome was not measured |
| CI: Confidence interval; VAS: Visual analogue scale; RDQ: Roland‐Morris Disability QuestionnaireODI: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire | |||||
| Grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. No evidence: No RCTs were identified that addressed this outcome. | |||||
1Lower than clinical significance level (30 mm). 2Less than 75% of participants are from low risk of bias studies. 3Statistical inconsistency. 4Number of participants smaller than optimal information size. 5Small effect size.