| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Hong Kong, general population
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 39 (E1 = 21, C1 = 18)
Chronic LBP duration: 7 years (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 35
Sex (female): 64% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Pilates (on floor mat and Pilates Reformer) to specifically activate the gluteus maximus and home practice; type = Pilates; duration = 4 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = none
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Usual care/no treatment (control group: consultation with healthcare professionals as necessary, continue with current physical activity) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Numeric Rating Scale); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 4 weeks (short) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: Not reported
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomisation was administered by independent office staff. Subjects randomly pulled a card from a box of concealed premarked cards to obtain assignment. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomisation was administered by independent office staff with subjects randomly pulling a card from a box of concealed premarked cards to obtain assignment. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Not described |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Not described |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Data collection monitored both pain intensity and functional status and included two self‐report questionnaires administered by the research assistant. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
All subjects in the main study completed the four‐week treatment intervention according to the study protocol. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
The first intention‐to‐treat analysis, using ‘last observation carried forward, revealed significant improvements in Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire scores over the 12‐month period. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Analysis indicated no significant difference between the groups regarding baseline characteristics (Table 1). |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Most of the subjects had seen more than one medical specialist over the years and were continuing to seek treatment. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Both groups completed the study and compliance was high, with 100% attendance at scheduled clinic appointments. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
