| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT (ISRCTN23753357)
Setting: Hong Kong, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 0 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 46 (E1 = 24, E2 = 22)
Chronic LBP duration: 13 months (moderate)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 47
Sex (female): 78% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Back mobilisation exercises, abdominal stabilisation exercises, aerobic training programme, home exercises; type = mixed; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = other & physiotherapy
Exercise Group 2 (E2): General exercise; type = mixed; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = individualised; delivery = independent; additional intervention = other & physiotherapy |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Aberdeen Back Pain Scale)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 8 weeks (short); 52 weeks (long) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hong Kong Polytechnic University; Department of Physiotherapy, David Trench Rehabilitation Centre
Other: Information modified for author contact; SDs imputed |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Subjects were randomly allocated. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Subjects were randomly allocated. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
The nature of the aerobic exercise training made it impossible to conceal treatment allocation to the subjects or the investigators. |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
The nature of the aerobic exercise training made it impossible to conceal treatment allocation to the subjects or the investigators. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
The nature of the aerobic exercise training made it impossible to conceal treatment allocation to the subjects or the investigators. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Four/46 lost to follow‐up |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
Intention‐to‐treat analysis was carried out for all analyses. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Unclear risk |
Did not test pain at 12 months |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
No significant differences were found between the two groups. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
There was an overall exercise attendance rate of 91.3%. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
