| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Italy, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 0 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 79 (E1 = 34, E2 = 45)
Chronic LBP duration: 71.4 months (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 58
Sex (female): 65% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Trunk balance exercises and standard trunk flexibility exercises; type = mixed; duration = 5 weeks; dose = low; design = standardised; delivery = group; additional intervention = not specified
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Strengthening exercises and standard trunk flexibility exercises; type = mixed; duration = 5 weeks; dose = low; design = standardised; delivery = group; additional intervention = not specified |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire); HRQoL (12‐Item Short Form Survey); Global Perceived Health or Recovery (Global Perceived Health or Recovery (patient‐report, improvement or worsening in specific positions))
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 6 weeks (short) |
| 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 |
Using a computer‐generated list of random numbers created and managed by a physiotherapist who was blinded |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Five/45 in the control group dropped out because of the intervention. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
Data were analysed using an intention‐to‐treat approach. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The two groups were homogeneous at the beginning of the rehabilitation period. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
No suggestion to the participants on drug management was given. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
All participants who completed the study were fully compliant with the intervention programme. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
