| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Denmark, occupational
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 0 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 138 (E1 = 64, E2 = 74)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: No participants
Mean age (years): 41
Sex (female): 65% |
| 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 & back school
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Aerobics and strengthening (machines); type = aerobic & strengthening; duration = 8 weeks; dose = high; design = standardised; delivery = group; additional intervention = none |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Numeric Rating Scale); function (Low Back Pain Rating Scale (Manniche)); work (sick leave days); Global Perceived Health or Recovery (Global Perceived Health or Recovery (global effect on quality of life))
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 52 weeks (long) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Conflict of interest category: 14
Funding source: Danish Rheumatism Association; Gerda and Aage Hensch Foundation; Director Ib Henriksen’s Fund; Insurance Company for Industrial Injuries; Lilly Benthine Lunds Fund; DANICA Pension; Municipal Pension Insurance Company Ltd.; Danish Society for Manual Medicine
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear 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) |
High 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) |
Unclear 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 |
