Ojoawo 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Setting: Nigeria, healthcare Exercise groups: 3 Comparison groups: 0
Participants	Number of participants: 63 (E1 = 21, E2 = 21, E3 = 21) Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified) Neurological/radicular symptoms: Not specified Mean age (years): 52 Sex (female): 65%
Interventions	Exercise Group 1 (E1): Stabilisation in prone and supine: exercises focussed on back and core muscles, performed in both prone and supine positions; type = core strengthening; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = standardised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = manual therapy & other Exercise Group 2 (E2): Stabilisation in prone: exercises focussed on back and core muscles, performed in prone position; type = core strengthening; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = standardised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = manual therapy & other Exercise Group 3 (E3): Stabilisation in supine: exercises focussed on back and core muscles, performed in supine position; type = core strengthening; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = standardised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = manual therapy & other
Outcomes	Core outcomes reported: Pain (Verbal Rating Scale); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire) Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 8 weeks (short)
Notes	Conflicts of interest: None to declare Funding source: Not reported Other: Information modified for author contact
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Fishbowl technique; participants drawing group from bowl
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants chose their own lot from the bowl.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	1. Patients could not be blinded to allocation due to the nature of the treatments; 2. Unlikely that lack of patient blinding caused deviations from intended interventions; all of the treatments were very similar.
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. All exercises were explicitly different; unlikely to be able to change exercise programme.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	1. Outcome assessors for pain and function were the patients themselves, who could not be blinded due to the nature of the treatments; 2. Pain and functional questionnaires are subjective, and responses could be altered by awareness of intervention; 3. Neither treatment was obviously better than the other; no reason to alter patient response
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	1. Dropout rate was 11% (7/63).
Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias)	Low risk	1. Appeared that patients were analysed according to the treatment group to which they were randomised
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	1. No linked protocol or statistical analysis plan found: within this publication, all outcomes and analyses were fully reported; no obvious omissions
Groups similar at baseline (selection bias)	Low risk	Both treatment groups were similar on all relevant baseline characteristics, except sex was not reported.
Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias)	Low risk	No mention of co‐interventions in this study
Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias)	Low risk	Presentation was confusing; seemed that 5 were not completely compliant but no reporting over attendance/compliance
Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias)	Low risk	1. Outcome assessments were identical for all patients, regardless of treatment group; 2. Oswestry Disability Index (for function), and Visual Analogue Scale (for pain) are all well‐validated tools in the low back pain context.
Other bias	Low risk	Appeared free from other sources of bias