| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Germany, general population
Exercise groups: 1
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 74 (E1 = 58, C1 = 16)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 44
Sex (female): 55% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Progressive hypertrophy‐oriented strength training on machines with variable resistance, lumbar extensor training with the pelvis stabilised for all muscle groups; type = strengthening; duration = 24 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = independent with follow‐up; additional intervention = none
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Usual care/no treatment (waiting‐list group) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (MOS Pain Severity); function (Oswestry Disability Index)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 26 weeks (moderate) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Anika Stephan and Dr. Sven Goebel work for the Research and Development Department at Kieser Training AG. Prof. Dr. Dietmar Schmidtbleicher has been remunerated for his consultancy by Kieser Training AG.
Funding source: Not reported
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| 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 |
Unclear risk |
Twenty‐two of the 80 participants in the training group dropped out. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
High risk |
Fifty‐six/80 analysed only |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Table 1 described the sample and the characteristics of the sample group at the start of the intervention (no significant differences). |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Participants dropped out if they didn't have good compliance; others not discussed |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
