| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT (NCT00209820)
Setting: Denmark, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 136 (E1 = 45, E2 = 46, C1 = 45)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 47
Sex (female): 72% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Supervised outdoor sessions of Nordic walking, individual pace allowed to vary; type = aerobic; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = none
Exercise Group 2 (E2): One hour Nordic walking instruction and advice to Nordic walk at home; type = aerobic; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = none
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (education) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Low Back Pain Rating Scale (Manniche)); function (Low Back Pain Rating Scale (function)); work (time off work)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 8 weeks (short); 26 weeks (moderate); 52 weeks (long) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: Not reported
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Randomisation was carried out by a project secretary after collection of the baseline data. Participants drew a sealed opaque envelope containing info. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomisation was carried out by a project secretary after collection of the baseline data. |
| 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 |
During the eight intervention weeks, five, four, and one participants dropped out of the groups and did not contribute with follow‐up data at any point. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
Data were analysed 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 |
The randomisation resulted in three groups comparable in all baseline variables. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Also use of over‐the‐counter pain medication or use of concurrent treatment during the one‐year follow‐up period were not statistically significant. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Altogether 25 (50.4%) of participants in the supervised nordic walking group and 29 (65.2%) in the unsupervised nordic walking group contributed data for seven or more days. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
