| Methods |
Randomisation or concealment not described |
| Participants |
42 patients (22 male, 20 female), age (range 22 to 60) included one month after first‐time lumbar disc surgery. Only short‐term follow‐up |
| Interventions |
(I1, N = 14) Dynamic lumbar stabilisation exercise for eight weeks under supervision; (I2, N = 14) Flexion‐extension programme (Williams‐McKenzie) home programme for eight weeks; (C) no treatment |
| Outcomes |
Pain (VAS scores at post‐treatment) (I1) 1.14 (0.86) versus (I2) 2.93 (2.02) versus (C) 4.29 (1.90). Functional status (scores on Modified Oswestry at post‐treatment) (I1) 8.5 (4.8) versus (I2) 12.93 (4.23) versus (C) 17.71 (6.23) |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described in text |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Unclear from text |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes ‐ patients? |
High risk |
Supervised versus home versus no exercise |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes ‐ care providers? |
High risk |
Supervised versus home versus no exercise |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes ‐ outcome assessors? |
High risk |
Patient reported |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes ‐ drop‐outs? |
Unclear risk |
Unclear from text |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes ‐ ITT analysis? |
Unclear risk |
Unclear from text |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
VAS for pain, Oswestry, methods last paragraph, reported in results |
| Similarity of baseline characteristics? |
Low risk |
Table 1 |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar? |
Unclear risk |
Unclear from text |
| Compliance acceptable? |
Unclear risk |
Unclear from text |
| Timing outcome assessments similar? |
Low risk |
Three months |
