| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT (ISRCTN67030896)
Setting: Northern Ireland, healthcare
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 56 (E1 = 39, C1 = 17)
Chronic LBP duration: 10.7 years (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 49
Sex (female): 55% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Graded pedometer‐driven walking programme focussed on behaviour change; type = aerobic; duration = 8 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = independent with follow‐up; additional intervention = advice/education & psychological therapy
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (education) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Numeric Rating Scale); function (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale); HRQoL (EuroQol 5D)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 9 weeks (short); 26 weeks (moderate) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: Physiotherapy Research Foundation (PRF/08/1); Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, London; Department of Employment and Learning, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Other: Information modified for author contact, SDs imputed |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Consenting participants were randomised using a computer‐generated random allocation sequence. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Generated the schedule for the random allocation sequence, which was held in a secure cabinet |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Because of the nature of the interventions, it was not possible to blind participants or treatment providers. |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Because of the nature of the interventions, it was not possible to blind participants or treatment providers. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Because of the nature of the interventions, it was not possible to blind participants or treatment providers. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Figure 1 |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
High risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Male/female ratio different and employment; all others similar |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
High risk |
Author contact: not likely co‐interventions during treatment period, but different after nine‐week intervention period |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Mean percentage adherence with weekly step targets was 70% (95% CI 62% to 77%). |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
