Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 28;2021(9):CD009790. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009790.pub2

Muharram 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: RCT
Setting: Thailand, general population
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1
Participants Number of participants: 164 (E1 = 82, C1 = 82)
Chronic LBP duration: 3 years (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 43
Sex (female): 44%
Interventions Exercise Group 1 (E1): Chen style shadowboxing exercise (24 steps, involving multisegmental and multidirectional movement patterns); type = aerobic & strengthening; duration = 12 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = none
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Usual care/no treatment (control group: no exercise, but given suggestions for healthy living)
Outcomes Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); HRQoL (36‐Item Short Form Survey)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 12 weeks (short)
Notes Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: Not reported
Other: SDs imputed
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Randomised using random number generator
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk Support for judgement was not available.
Blinding of care provider (performance bias) High risk Support for judgement was not available.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk During the study period, three control group participants and four group participants dropped out of the study.
Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) Unclear 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 No statistically significant differences were found between the experimental and control groups.
Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) Unclear risk Although participants in the control group were encouraged to engage in healthy living activities, they were not directed in any specific activities.
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.