| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Canada, general population
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 27 (E1 = 9, E2 = 9, C1 = 9)
Chronic LBP duration: 27.6 months (moderate)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: No participants
Mean age (years): 37
Sex (female): 40% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Resistance training for upper and lower body using free weights, machines, and body weight; type = strengthening; duration = 16 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = none
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Aerobic training including any form of aerobic exercise which was of interest to the participant (i.e. elliptical trainer, treadmill walking or jogging); type = aerobic; duration = 16 weeks; dose = high; design = individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = none
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Usual care/no treatment (control group: no description) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Oswestry Disability Index); HRQoL (36‐Item Short Form Survey)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 16 weeks (moderate) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation (New Investigator Grant); University of Alberta, Augustana Campus (travel grant)
Other: SDs imputed |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
The 27 subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
High risk |
Not described |
| 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 |
High risk |
Initially, there were 33 subjects in the study, but six subjects dropped out, leaving 27 who completed the 16‐week study. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
High risk |
Not described |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
No significant differences were apparent among the groups at baseline, week eight, or week 16 for body composition (Table 1). |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
The present study sought to eliminate this problem by isolating two forms of exercise rehabilitation, resistance training and aerobic training, and stopping all other exercise modes. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
