| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT (NCT00410319)
Setting: Denmark, healthcare
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 207 (E1 = 102, C1 = 105)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 39
Sex (female): 52% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Symptom‐based physical training including directional preferences and posture exercises, back stabilisation and strengthening exercises and home exercise; type = core strengthening; duration = not specified weeks; dose = low; design = individualised; delivery = not specified; additional intervention = none
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (education) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Numeric Rating Scale); function (Low Back Pain Rating Scale); work (work ability, an 11‐item scale on the patients work situation); Global Perceived Health or Recovery (Global Perceived Health or Recovery (global quality of life due to treatment (5‐point))
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 8 weeks (short); 26 weeks (moderate); 52 weeks (long) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: Institut für Makroökonomie und Konjunkturforschung Foundation; Health Insurance Foundation (Sygekassernes Helsefond); Tryg Foundationen; Funen County Research Foundation; Danish Rheumatism Association
Other: Information modified for author contact |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
A secretary managed the randomisation, using unmarked sealed envelopes, containing a note on which was randomly written one of the group names. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
A secretary managed the randomisation, using unmarked sealed envelopes, containing a note on which was randomly written one of the group names. |
| 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 |
The same investigator (PHS) managed the baseline examination and controlled the follow‐up forms, blinded to the treatment group. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
The losses to follow‐up were all due to non‐attendance, even after a second written invitation. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
High risk |
Not included |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Participants in both groups (n = 105 and 102) were comparable at baseline, as shown in Table 1 and 2. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.65 to 0.87) between the two groups. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
High risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
