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

Djavid 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: RCT
Setting: Iran, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 1
Participants Number of participants: 53 (E1 = 19, E2 = 18, C1 = 16)
Chronic LBP duration: 29 months (moderate)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 38
Sex (female): 64%
Interventions Exercise Group 1 (E1): Strengthening, stretching, mobilising, co‐ordination, and stabilising exercises for abdominal, back, pelvic and lower limb muscles; type = mixed; duration = 6 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = electrotherapy
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Strengthening, stretching, mobilising, co‐ordination, and stabilising exercises for abdominal, back, pelvic and lower limb muscles; type = mixed; duration = 6 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = placebo
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (electrotherapy)
Outcomes Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Oswestry Disability Index)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 6 weeks (short); 13 weeks (moderate)
Notes Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: Not reported
Other: None
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Allocation of participants was concealed.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Allocation of participants was concealed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk Patients received laser therapy or placebo laser therapy on Saturday and Wednesday for 12 sessions.
Blinding of care provider (performance bias) Low risk Patients received laser therapy or placebo laser therapy on Saturday and Wednesday for 12 sessions.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Low risk All outcomes were measured on admission to the trial, at week six (after the last session of intervention) and at week 12 by physicians blinded to group.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk Sixty‐one patients were randomised into one of the three groups (Figure I). Eight participants withdrew from the trial during the intervention or follow‐up period.
Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) Low risk Analyses were performed on an intention‐to‐treat basis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Support for judgement was not available.
Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) Low risk There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups.
Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) Unclear risk Not described
Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) Unclear risk Not described
Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) Low risk Support for judgement was not available.