| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Norway, healthcare
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 152 (E1 = 79, C1 = 73)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 43
Sex (female): 46% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Exercise in heated water (stretching and mobilising), group exercise in gym (walking, mobilising, stretching) and individual exercise programme (e.g. cycling, walking); type = mixed; duration = 1 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = advice/education & psychological therapy & relaxation
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Usual care/no treatment (control group: referred back to the general practitioner) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Activity Discomfort Scale)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 12 weeks (short); 52 weeks (long) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: Norwegian Research Council; Norwegian Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Research Unit of the Norwegian Back Pain Network
Other: Sufficient data not available for inclusion in meta‐analyses |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The randomisation was concealed and done in blocks of 10 by an assistant with no prior knowledge of the patients drawing ID‐numbers and group allocation. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The randomisation was concealed and done in blocks of 10 by an assistant with no prior knowledge of the patients drawing ID‐numbers and group allocation. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
After randomisation, letters were sent to the participants informing them of which group they were allocated to. |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Not described |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
All self‐report |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
During the study period, 16.5 per cent in the treatment group and 19.2 per cent in the control group resigned from the study. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Unclear risk |
Numbers seemed to be without withdrawals. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
There were no significant differences between the groups on demographic factors or sick leave at baseline (see Table 2). |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| 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. |
