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

Fransoo 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: RCT
Setting: Belgium, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 1
Participants Number of participants: 58 (E1 = 20, E2 = 19, C1 = 19)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 44
Sex (female): 57%
Interventions Exercise Group 1 (E1): Progressive strengthening and stabilising muscle exercises with loading, stretching, Back School‐type exercises; type = mixed; duration = 7 weeks; dose = low; design = individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = advice/education & manual therapy
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Progressive strengthening and stabilising muscle exercises without load and stretching; type = core strengthening & stretching; duration = 5 weeks; dose = low; design = individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = advice/education & manual therapy
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (manual therapy, education)
Outcomes Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 7 weeks (short); 13 weeks (moderate)
Notes Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: Not reported
Other: SDs imputed
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 Unclear risk Support for judgement is not available
Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) Unclear 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) Unclear 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