| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT (ACTRN12607000432415)
Setting: Australia, mixed
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 0 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 172 (E1 = 86, E2 = 86)
Chronic LBP duration: 100 months (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 49
Sex (female): 59% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Motor control exercises: contracting transversus abdominals and multifidus muscles in isolation using biofeedback, training co‐ordination of all trunk muscles during functional tasks, home exercises; type = core strengthening; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = advice/education
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Graded activity: increasing activity tolerance by performing individualised and submaximal exercises and home exercise; type = other (graded activity); duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = advice/education & psychological therapy |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Numeric Rating Scale); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire); HRQoL (36‐Item Short Form Survey); Global Perceived Health or Recovery (Global Perceived Health or Recovery (recovery))
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 8 weeks (short); 26 weeks (moderate); 52 weeks (long) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: Australia’s National Health; Medical Research Council
Other: Information modified for author contact |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The randomisation sequence was computer‐generated by an investigator not involved in recruitment or treatment allocation. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Allocation was concealed in sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes by an investigator not involved in the study. |
| 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 |
Low risk |
All self‐reported measures were collected by an investigator blinded to treatment allocation. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Nine participants withdrew from the study: two from the graded activity group (one for not improving and one unknown) and seven from the motor control exercise group. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
Eight‐six participants in each group analysed |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Baseline characteristics, including demographics and baseline scores for both treatment groups, were reported in Table 3. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Author contact: measured and no difference between groups |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Adherence to treatment in the initial eight‐week period was excellent, with both groups attending a mean of 10.3 (SD 3.6) of the planned 12 sessions. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Same time points for all |
