| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: England, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 0 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 80 (E1 = 40, E2 = 40)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: No participants
Mean age (years): 46
Sex (female): 65% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Treadmill, exercise bicycle, sit to stand repetitions, spinal stabilisation exercises (supine, prone, 4‐point kneeling), upper and lower extremity exercises; type = mixed; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = advice/education & manual therapy
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Spinal stabilisation exercises; type = core strengthening; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = advice/education & manual therapy |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale)
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: No funding received
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Using random number tables, subjects were assigned to Group 1 (exercise class) or Group 2 (individual treatment). |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
High risk |
Not described |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
The nature of the interventions precluded any blinding of physiotherapists or participants to the assigned treatments. |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
The nature of the interventions precluded any blinding of physiotherapists or participants to the assigned treatments. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Two assessors blinded to group allocation administered questionnaires and conducted physical assessments, before group allocation. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Out of 80, 17 were lost and are detailed in Figure 1. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
In this study, the data from each participant was analysed in accordance with the intention‐to‐treat approach. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
High risk |
After randomisation, there was no statistical difference between the groups. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
In the exercise group, three subjects required additional conservative treatment at the end of their treatment programme, five at six months and six at 12 months. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
There was a steady decline in the reported compliance of the home exercises over the one‐year follow‐up period. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
