Lomond 2015.
| Methods | Randomised controlled trial | |
| Participants | 33 participants Inclusion criteria: participants who were admitted to the study were between 21 and 55 years old, had a history of chronic LBP (> 12 months) with or without recurrences, could stand and walk independently, had an ODI score of 19% or more and/or a score of less than 8 on at least one activity from the Patient Specific Functional Scale, could understand English and were currently employed or actively engaged in daily activities Exclusion criteria: exclusion criteria included structural spinal deformity, spinal fracture, osteoporosis, systemic disease processes, disc herniation, previous spinal surgery, pregnancy or less than 6 months of postpartum or postweaning, magnified symptom behaviour and a body mass index (BMI) of greater than 30 |
|
| Interventions |
Stabilisation intervention (STB): the STB protocol focused on 3 components of spinal stability: (1) motor control of the deep trunk muscles, (2) strengthening of the flexor, extensor and oblique trunk muscles by focusing on repeated submaximal efforts to mimic the function of these muscles in spine STB, and (3) an education booklet that describes proper body mechanics of the spine during activities of daily living Movement system impairment (MSI): the MSI protocol to focus on (1) education regarding how the subject's lumbopelvic movement patterns and postures repeated daily might accelerate lumbar tissue stress as well as education about positions or postures to control symptoms, (2) exercises to modify the subject's specific trunk movements and postures in particular directions that were pain‐free, and (3) functional activity modifications (based on their Patient Specific Functional Scale) to change the subject's trunk movement and alignment patterns. |
|
| Outcomes | Pain (NRS 0 to 10) Disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) |
|
| Notes | ODI: 100% The study was prospectively registered (NCT01362049) |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | "Computer‐generated randomization with centralized allocation concealment was used to randomise subjects into each treatment" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | "Computer‐generated randomization with centralized allocation concealment was used to randomise subjects into each treatment" |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No mention of any attempts to blind the participants |
| Blinding of personnel/care provider (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No mention of any attempts to blind the care provider |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not considered as patients were not blinded |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | The percentage of withdrawals and dropouts was within the acceptable rate |
| Intention‐to‐treat analysis | Low risk | According to Figure 2, patients were analysed in the group to which they were allocated by randomisation |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | "This study was prospectively registered (NCT01362049)" |
| Group similarity at baseline (selection bias) | Low risk | Patients did not differ in their baseline characteristics |
| Co‐interventions (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Compliance (performance bias) | Low risk | Compliance was considered similar for both groups |
| Timing of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Low risk | All important outcome assessments for both groups were measured at the same time |