| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: China, healthcare
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 0 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 60 (E1 = 28, E2 = 32)
Chronic LBP duration: Not specified (not specified)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 39
Sex (female): 42% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): Muscle strengthening exercises: abdominal and trunk extensor muscles, warm‐up (5 minutes), abdominal extensor exercises (15 minutes), trunk extensor exercises (15 minutes), cool down (5 minutes); type = core strengthening; duration = 12 weeks; dose = high; design = standardised; delivery = group; additional intervention = not specified
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Co‐ordination and control of, and strength and endurance of the trunk muscles, neural control and neutral spine exercises (bridging with legs lifts, reverse bridge, etc.); type = core strengthening; duration = 12 weeks; dose = high; design = standardised; delivery = group; additional intervention = not specified |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale); function (Oswestry Disability Index)
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 12 weeks (short) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: Not reported
Funding source: National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (Grant: 81101391); Science and Technology Foundation Program of Shanghai University of Sport (Grant: YJSCX201120); Shanghai Natural Science Foundation of Chine (Grant: 11ZR1434900)
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
All subjects were randomly assigned by using a computer‐generated random number sequence to either core stability training group or control group |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
With the use of opaque closed envelopes and stratified by centre, included patients were randomised to core stability training group or control group by an independent co‐ordinator. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
This study was a two‐armed randomised, controlled trial with blinding of patients and assessors with respect to the nature of therapy. |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
All assessments were done by three independent, experienced physical therapists, who were not working in the participating rehabilitation centres. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
After 12‐week programme, there were 55 subjects. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Unclear risk |
Two patients did not attend the final evaluation session. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The groups were well matched at the baseline assessment, with no differences in key outcome variables. |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Post‐treatment (12 weeks) |
