| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Norway, healthcare
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 246 (E1 = 124, C1 = 122)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (moderate)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 41
Sex (female): 51% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Warm‐up, circuit training (10 stations of strengthening and balance exercises), stretching (after a 2 week spine clinic intervention); type = mixed; duration = 8 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = independent; additional intervention = advice/education & relaxation
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (education) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Low Back Pain Rating Scale (Manniche)); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire); work (sick leave (total length of leave, frequency of sick leave periods))
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 12 weeks (short) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation (Grant No. Nkr 840 000)
Other: Sufficient data not available for inclusion in meta‐analyses |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The concealed randomisation was made according to a list prepared in advance at the University of Bergen (Norwegian Back Pain Network, Research Unit). |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
A secretary at the Research Unit was responsible for the randomisation procedures and was not involved in the treatment of the patients. |
| 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 |
Low risk |
At the first visit at the spine clinic, before randomisation, all patients were examined by a physiotherapist using six different tests. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Eight participants dropped out. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
Those with zero attendances were still considered as participants in the exercise group, according to the intention‐to‐treat principle. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
There were few baseline characteristics available to be able to assess group differences. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Range of attendances in the physical exercise programme for the intervention group was 0‐24; median 15.0. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
