Table 2.
Network meta-analysis consistency models for pain, physical function, mental health and muscle strength in studies examining the efficacy of exercise training in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain
| Treatment type | Comparison to ‘no treatment’ | Likelihood (%) of being… | SUCRA (%) | ||
| Pooled SMD (95% CI) | P value | Best | Worst | ||
| Pain | |||||
| CON: True control | – | – | 0.0 | 37.0 | 10 |
| INT: Aerobic | −1.41 (−2.43 to −0.40) | 0.006 | 16.6 | 0.2 | 80 |
| INT: Other | −1.07 (−1.67 to −0.47) | <0.001 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 60 |
| CON: Hands-off | 0.09 (−0.71 to 0.89) | 0.827 | 0.0 | 56.6 | 10 |
| CON: Hands-on | −0.69 (−1.39 to 0.01) | 0.054 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 30 |
| INT: Water-based | −0.91 (−1.85 to 0.03) | 0.057 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 50 |
| INT: McKenzie | −0.81 (−1.74 to 0.11) | 0.083 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 40 |
| INT: Multimodal | −0.99 (−1.55 to −0.44) | <0.001 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 50 |
| INT: Pilates | −1.86 (−2.54 to −1.19) | <0.001 | 68.9 | 0.0 | 100 |
| INT: Resistance | −1.14 (−1.86 to −0.42) | 0.002 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 60 |
| INT: Stabilisation | −1.31 (−1.75 to −0.87) | <0.001 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 80 |
| INT: Stretching | −0.62 (−1.38 to 0.13) | 0.107 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 30 |
| INT: Yoga | −0.99 (−2.00 to 0.03) | 0.056 | 4.7 | 0.5 | 50 |
| Physical function | |||||
| CON: True control | – | – | 0.0 | 59.4 | 0 |
| INT: Aerobic | −0.85 (−1.62 to −0.09) | 0.029 | 9.3 | 1.0 | 60 |
| INT: Other | −0.72 (−1.32 to −0.13) | 0.017 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 50 |
| CON: Hands-off | −0.31 (−0.94 to 0.32) | 0.340 | 0.0 | 12.7 | 20 |
| CON: Hands-on | −0.49 (−1.08 to 0.10) | 0.102 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 30 |
| INT: Water-based | −1.00 (−1.67 to −0.32) | 0.004 | 18.1 | 0.1 | 70 |
| INT: McKenzie | −0.27 (−1.02 to 0.47) | 0.471 | 0.4 | 20.0 | 20 |
| INT: Multimodal | −0.75 (−1.23 to −0.27) | 0.002 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 50 |
| INT: Pilates | −0.92 (−1.48 to −0.36) | 0.001 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 70 |
| INT: Resistance | −1.14 (−1.71 to −0.56) | <0.001 | 27.5 | 0.0 | 80 |
| INT: Stabilisation | −1.13 (−1.53 to −0.74) | <0.001 | 18.7 | 0.0 | 80 |
| INT: Stretching | −0.55 (−1.20 to 0.10) | 0.095 | 1.3 | 2.9 | 40 |
| INT: Yoga | −0.92 (−1.66 to −0.18) | 0.015 | 13.9 | 0.1 | 70 |
| Mental health | |||||
| CON: True control | – | – | 0.0 | 68.1 | 10 |
| INT: Aerobic | −1.18 (−2.20 to −0.15) | 0.024 | 32.9 | 0.2 | 80 |
| CON: Hands-on | −0.31 (−1.31 to 0.70) | 0.552 | 0.2 | 26.6 | 20 |
| INT: Multimodal | −0.75 (−1.61 to 0.11) | 0.086 | 8.3 | 2.8 | 50 |
| INT: Pilates | −0.84 (−1.71 to 0.02) | 0.056 | 13.4 | 1.7 | 60 |
| INT: Resistance | −1.26 (−2.10 to −0.41) | 0.003 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 80 |
| INT: Stabilisation | −0.78 (−1.49 to −0.07) | 0.031 | 5.2 | 0.5 | 50 |
| Muscle strength | |||||
| CON: True control | – | – | 8.0 | 65.6 | 20 |
| INT: Resistance | 0.18 (−0.27 to 0.64) | 0.427 | 42.9 | 17.0 | 60 |
| INT: Stabilisation | 0.21 (−0.28 to 0.69) | 0.399 | 49.1 | 17.4 | 70 |
The significance of the difference of the effect estimate (SMD) compared with ‘no treatment’ control is indicated by the p value. The likelihood of being the best or worst treatment is indicated as a percentage and this is best summarised by the SUCRA which ranges from 0% to 100%. The SUCRA measure assesses the likely ranks of all treatments and the higher the SUCRA percentage, the more likely that therapy is one of the most effective.
CON, control; INT, exercise training intervention; SMD, standardised mean difference; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curves.