| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: South Korea, mixed
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 74 (E1 = 37, C1 = 37)
Chronic LBP duration: 9.65 months (moderate)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: No participants
Mean age (years): 29
Sex (female): 100% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): CORE exercise programme; type = core strengthening; duration = 8 weeks; dose = high; design = standardised; delivery = independent with follow‐up; additional intervention = electrotherapy & heat/ice
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (physical therapy) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 8 weeks (short); 16 weeks (moderate) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: No funding received
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
All participants were randomly assigned to the CORE group or the control group using random allocation software. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomised by an independent examiner who was not involved in participant recruitment |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
1. Impossible for patients to be blinded to exercises versus control protocols; 2. Control versus exercise; 3. Control versus exercise; 4. Control group was provided some form of care (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation/hot pack) |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
Low risk |
1. Care providers could not be blinded to allocation due to the nature of the treatments; 2. Likely different providers giving CORE protocol and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
1. Outcome was pain, which was assessed by the patients who were not blinded; 2. Pain questionnaires are subjective, and responses could be altered by awareness of intervention; 3. Exercise versus control |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
1. 21 of 74 dropped out, 28%; 2. Dropouts were excluded from analysis; 3. Increased pain and function could cause missingness; 4. 10 and 11 in each group |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
High risk |
1. Non‐compliant were not analysed, and those who got additional therapies were excluded; 2. 15 excluded due to taking medication; likely that these patients had different outcomes |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
1. Study protocol mentioned in methods |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Age, weight, height, duration, and sex were all similar. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Patients who received additional therapies were excluded. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
In CORE group, the eight‐week programme compliance rate was 85.5%, though no compliance reported in control group |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
1. Same blinded examiner helped to deliver outcome measures in order to reduce measurement error; 2. Visual Analogue Scale valid and reliable |
| Other bias |
Low risk |
Appeared free from other sources of bias |
