| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT (NCT01250262)
Setting: USA, mixed
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 1 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 49 (E1 = 17, E2 = 18, C1 = 14)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (long)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: No participants
Mean age (years): 68
Sex (female): 67% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Total body resistance exercise including lumbar extension (with machines); type = strengthening; duration = 17 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = advice/education
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Isolated lumbar extension resistance exercise (with machines); type = strengthening; duration = 17 weeks; dose = high; design = partially individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = advice/education & psychological therapy
Comparison Group 1 (C1): Other conservative treatment (education) |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Numeric Rating Scale); function (Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 17 weeks (moderate) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health (AR057552‐ 01A1)
Other: Information modified for author contact |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
A computer‐generated list was used to randomly assign the group allocation. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The assignments per participant number were placed in numbered sealed envelopes. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Figure 1 |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
High risk |
Not according to the flow chart |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
There were no differences in the physiological characteristics among the three study groups. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Author contact: measured diet and other exercises |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Low risk |
Adherence to the training programmes in both isolated lumbar extension resistance exercise group and total body resistance exercise group were excellent. |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
All the same |
