| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT (NCT00888524)
Setting: Spain, healthcare
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 58 (E1 = 29, C1 = 29)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: No participants
Mean age (years): 38
Sex (female): 57% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Deep water running; type = aerobic; duration = 16 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = advice/education
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Usual care/no treatment (control group: usual general practice) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire); HRQoL (12‐Item Short Form Survey (Spanish))
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 16 weeks (moderate); 52 weeks (long) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: National Health Service of Andalusia
Other: Information modified for author contact |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The assignments, which were generated by a computer, were presented in sealed, sequentially numbered envelopes. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Not described |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Not described |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Not described |
| 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) |
Low risk |
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Author contact: did not measure this; it could have affected results. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
The dropout rate was acceptable (17.2 %), suggesting that compliance to the study in both groups was adequate. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
