| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Finland, mixed
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 2 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 114 (E1 = 35, C1 = 34, C2 = 45)
Chronic LBP duration: 390 weeks (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 42
Sex (female): 43% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Bending, rotation exercises; “auto‐stretching when appropriate”; type = core strengthening & stretching; duration = 6 weeks; dose = low; design = standardised; delivery = independent; additional intervention = none
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (physical therapy)
Comparison Group 2 (C2): Other conservative treatment (manual therapy) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 6 weeks (short); 26 weeks (moderate) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: Finnish Slot Machine Association
Other: SDs imputed |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
High risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low 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 |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Unclear risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement is not available |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
High 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 |
