| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT (ACTRN12610000523000)
Setting: Brazil, general population
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 86 (E1 = 43, C1 = 43)
Chronic LBP duration: 65 months (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Not specified
Mean age (years): 40
Sex (female): 81% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Pilates; type = Pilates; duration = 6 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = advice/education
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (education) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Numeric Rating Scale); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire); Global Perceived Health or Recovery (Global Perceived Health or Recovery (Global Perceived Effect scale))
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 6 weeks (short); 26 weeks (moderate) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: No funding received
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Simple randomisation was conducted using Microsoft Excel for Windows software. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Allocation was concealed by using consecutively numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Due to the nature of the interventions, it was not possible to blind the participants and the therapist involved in the study. |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Due to the nature of the interventions, it was not possible to blind the participants and the therapist involved in the study. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
No dropouts |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
The analyses followed the intention‐to‐treat principles. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The baseline data from both groups were similar for most of the characteristics. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Participants were allowed to keep taking their medication normally as prescribed by their medical doctor. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
There was 90.3% attendance. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
