Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 28;2021(9):CD009790. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009790.pub2

Barberini 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: RCT
Setting: Italy, occupational
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1
Participants Number of participants: 22 (E1 = 10, C1 = 12)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Not specified
Mean age (years): 47
Sex (female): Not reported
Interventions Exercise Group 1 (E1): Exercising in water and general exercises (as part of Back School); type = mixed; duration = 6 weeks; dose = low; design = standardised; delivery = group; additional intervention = none
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (back school)
Outcomes Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Oswestry Disability Index); HRQoL (36‐Item Short Form Survey)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 6 weeks (short); 13 weeks (moderate)
Notes Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: Not reported
Other: SDs imputed
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Support for judgement was not available.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Support for judgement was not available.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk Support for judgement was not available.
Blinding of care provider (performance bias) High risk Support for judgement was not available.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes High risk Support for judgement was not available.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk Support for judgement was not available.
Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) High risk Support for judgement was not available.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Support for judgement was not available.
Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) High risk Support for judgement was not available.
Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) Unclear risk Support for judgement was not available.
Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) Unclear risk Support for judgement was not available.
Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) Low risk Support for judgement was not available.
Other bias Unclear risk Not available: non‐English publication