| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Canada, general population
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 0 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 24 (E1 = 12, E2 = 12)
Chronic LBP duration: 45.05 months (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: No participants
Mean age (years): 40
Sex (female): 36% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Isometric activation of deep core muscles; type = core strengthening; duration = 3 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = independent with follow‐up; additional intervention = advice/education
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Global exercise targeting the paravertebral muscles; type = core strengthening; duration = 3 weeks; dose = low; design = standardised; delivery = independent with follow‐up; additional intervention = advice/education |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Oswestry Disability Index)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 8.7 weeks (short) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CS equipment); Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé (HMA and LDB PhD studentships); Canadian Institutes of Health Research (HMA studentship)
Other: Information modified for author contact |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
A member of the laboratory not involved in the study prepared a random list where each new participant was allocated to an exercise group. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Third party randomisation |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
1. Patient could not be blinded due to nature of intervention; 2. Both interventions required supervision and training; one intervention was not clearly superior to the other. |
| 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. One intervention was not clearly superior to the other; protocol was explicit. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
1. Pain and functional questionnaires are subjective, and responses could be altered by awareness of intervention; 2. Pain and function questionnaires are subjective; 3. Both groups were getting exercise interventions. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
1. 2 of 24 dropped out; equal between groups. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
1. Not stated but numbers matched |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
1. Protocol referenced in publication |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Participants similar on gender, age, height, weight, body mass index, sedentary lifestyle, pain duration, and side of pain |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
No information on additional therapies |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
High risk |
Exercise log collected but not reported |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
1. Outcomes assessed similarly; 2. Visual Analogue Scale & Oswestry Disability Index valid. |
| Other bias |
Low risk |
Appeared free from other sources of bias |
