Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings: Exercise treatment compared with other conservative treatments for chronic low back pain.

Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects*		Number of participants (studies; study groups)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)a
	Without exercise (other conservative treatment comparison)	Difference with exercise
Pain intensity (0‐100 points; 0 = no pain): Earliest follow‐up (time point closest to 3 months)	The mean pain intensity outcome at follow‐up ranged across the other conservative treatment comparison groups from 8 to 73 points.	The mean pain intensity in the exercise treatment groups was 9 points better than the other conservative treatment comparison groups at follow‐up (6 to 13 points better).	Participants = 6295; studies = 64; study groups = 85	⊕⊕⊝⊝
				lowb
				due to risk of inconsistency and publication bias
Functional limitations (0‐100 points; 0 = no functional limitations): Earliest follow‐up (time point closest to 3 months)	The mean functional limitations outcome at follow‐up ranged across the other conservative treatment comparison groups from 8 to 60 points.	The mean functional limitations in the exercise treatment groups was 4 points better than the other conservative treatment comparison groups at follow‐up (2 to 6 points better).	Participants = 6004; studies = 52; study groups = 69	⊕⊕⊕⊝
				moderatec
				due to risk of inconsistency
*The anticipated absolute effects without exercise come from the range of outcomes at follow‐up in the other conservative treatment comparison groups.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect. Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

^a For all comparisons and outcomes ‐ certainty may be raised one level given that further similar research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.

^b Eleven studies (14 groups; 835 participants) were judged to have high risk of bias (13% of participant data). Exclusion of these studies in sensitivity analysis did not change conclusions. Serious inconsistency (considerable heterogeneity I² = 81%, point estimates and confidence intervals varied considerably), partially explained by exploration of effect in specific comparison subgroups (I² < 75% for five of eight comparisons). No concerns about indirectness or imprecision. Some evidence of potential publication bias (Egger's test, P = 0.001).

^c Seven studies (9 groups; 571 participants) were judged to have high risk of bias (10% of participant data). Exclusion of these studies in sensitivity analysis did not change conclusions. Serious inconsistency (considerable heterogeneity I² = 82%, point estimates and confidence intervals varied considerably), partially explained by exploration of effect in specific comparison subgroups (I² < 75% for five of eight comparisons). No concerns about indirectness or imprecision. No evidence of publication bias (Egger's test, P = 0.40).