| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Denmark, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 106 (E1 = 40, E2 = 31, C1 = 35)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: No participants
Mean age (years): 42
Sex (female): 75% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Functional restoration: comprehensive multidisciplinary approach including aerobics, strengthening, stretching; type = functional restoration; duration = 3 weeks; dose = high; design = standardised; delivery = group; additional intervention = psychological therapy
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Aerobics and strengthening; type = aerobic & strengthening; duration = 6 weeks; dose = high; design = standardised; delivery = group; additional intervention = back school
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (psychological therapy) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Pain Rating Scale); function (Activities of Daily Living Scale); work (work readiness)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 17 weeks (moderate); 52 weeks (long) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: Danish Rheumatism Association, Nycomed‐DAK; AP Moller and Wife's Foundation; Pensam; Danish Insurance Association; Meyer's Foundation; Minister Ema Hamilton's Foundation; Director Ib Henriksen's Foundation; Research Foundation of Copenhagen University; Hafnia Foundation; Peter Ryholt's Foundation; Ingrid Munkholm's Foundation; Danish Society for Manual Medicine; Lily Benthine Lund's Foundation
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
High risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
