| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT (ISRCTN51496752)
Setting: England, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 2 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 68 (E1 = 17, E2 = 18, C1 = 16, C2 = 17)
Chronic LBP duration: 321.5 days (moderate)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Not specified
Mean age (years): 51
Sex (female): 62% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Motor relearning; stretching, aerobic exercises, exercise targeting motor control of deep abdominal and lumbar paraspinal muscle, home exercise; type = mixed; duration = 4 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = psychological therapy
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Motor relearning, stretching, aerobic exercises, exercise targeting motor control of deep abdominal and lumbar paraspinal muscle, home exercise; type = mixed; duration = 4 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = psychological therapy
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Usual care/no treatment (control group: continued with normal activity and treatment))
Comparison Group 2 (C2): Other conservative treatment (physical therapy) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Graded Chronic Pain Scale (Von Korff)); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire); HRQoL (EuroQol 5D); Global Perceived Health or Recovery (Global Perceived Health or Recovery (overall improvement (health transition))
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 12 weeks (short); 26 weeks (moderate) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Paul Little is editor‐in‐chief of the Programme Grants for Applied Research journal.
Funding source: Search Results Web results Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research
Other: SDs imputed |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Computer‐generated random numbers, stratified by history of previous pain |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Eighty‐three per cent follow‐up at three months, 81% at six months (reasons given in Table 6) |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
No imputation (described on page 12) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Even with the relatively small numbers, the groups were reasonably well balanced at baseline. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Control group participants were allowed to be allocated physio by their general practitioner. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Described in Table 5 |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
