| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Turkey, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 0 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 40 (E1 = 20, E2 = 20)
Chronic LBP duration: 42.5 months (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: No participants
Mean age (years): 39
Sex (female): 77% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Warm‐up (10‐minute walk) and trunk flexion and extension exercise using Cybexercise Norm Dynamometer machines; type = strengthening & aerobic; duration = 3 weeks; dose = low; design = standardised; delivery = group; additional intervention = advice/education
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Warm‐up (10‐minute walk) and passive lumbar flexion and extension, spine stretching and mobilisation exercises; type = mixed; duration = 3 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = advice/education |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Oswestry Disability Index)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 4 weeks (short); 7 weeks (short) |
| 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 |
The randomisation list was generated by a blinded researcher (the fourth author, experienced in biostatistics) using a table of random numbers. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The randomisation results were kept in sealed envelopes, one for each patient. |
| 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 |
High risk |
Not described |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
No dropouts |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
No dropouts |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The isokinetic and standard exercise groups showed no difference in demographic and clinical characteristics (Table 1). |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Exercise programmes were carried out under supervision, which resulted in higher patient compliance, attendance at exercise programmes and patient satisfaction. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
