[Summary text]
Study design: Randomized controlled trial
Study grouping: Parallel group
Open Label:
Cluster RCT:
Baseline Characteristics
Intervention
Kontrol
Included criteria: LBP between t12 and gluteal fold, 16-65 yrs for three wks or less w/without pain radiating into the upper leg
Excluded criteria: Pain more than 2 months, signs of radiculopathy or nerve neurologic deficit, traumatic onset, hx of back surgery or a recent episode of LBP, systemic disease and pregnancy
Pretreatment: similar at baseline
Intervention Characteristics
Intervention
Kontrol
Sygefravær, antal dage - 6-18 måneder (Sickleave, days)
Sponsorship source: None declared
Country: The Netherlands
Setting: Primary care
Comments: Title: A randomized trial of Exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain
Authors name: Fass, A
Institution: Department of general practice and nursing home medicine, Institute for research in extramural medicine, Vrije University of Amsterdam, Holland
Email:
Address:
Fagkonsulent Nkr40 on 24/02/2016 19:14
Outcomes
All cause sickness absence - table 2
Study design: Randomized controlled trial
Study grouping: Parallel group
Open Label:
Cluster RCT:
Baseline Characteristics
Intervention
Kontrol
Included criteria: To be eligible for inclusion, patients had to be 18 to80 years old, present with a new episode of acute non-spe-cific low back pain and be able and willing to visit one ofthe trial physical therapists for commencement of theMcKenzie treatment program within 48 h of presentationto the physician.
Excluded criteria: Patients were excluded if they had any of the following: nerve rootcompromise;‘red flags’for serious spinal pathology (forexample, infection, fracture); spinal surgery in the past 6months; pregnancy; severe cardiovascular or metabolicdisease; or the inability to read and understand English
Pretreatment: Similar at baseline
Intervention Characteristics
Intervention
Kontrol
Funktionsevne 0-12 uger (Disability)
Smerteniveau 0-12 uger (Pain)
Sponsorship source: This work was supported by a research and development grant from the University of Sydney, Australia. Dr Machado is a research fellow supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), Brazil. Dr Machado's PhD was supported by a scholarship from the Australian Government. Professor Maher and Associate Professor Herbert are senior research fellows funded by the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia.
Country: Australia
Setting: Primary care
Comments: Title: The effectiveness of the McKenzie method inaddition to first-line care for acute low back pain:a randomized controlled trial
Authors name: Luciana AC Machado1,2, Chris G Maher1*, Rob D Herbert1, Helen Clare3, James H McAuley
Institution: Correspondence: The George Institute for International Health, PO Box M201 Missenden RdSydney, NSW 2050, Australia
Email: cmaher@george.org.au
Address: PO Box M201 Missenden Rd Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia
Thorvaldur Skuli Palsson on 25/02/2016 17:50
Outcomes
Ved follow up er variabiliteten indikeret med SE
Study design: Randomized controlled trial
Study grouping: Parallel group
Open Label:
Cluster RCT:
Baseline Characteristics
Intervention
Kontrol
Included criteria: 18 and 80 years of agewith nonspecific low back pain lasting for at least 6 weeksbut no longer than 12 weeks.
Excluded criteria: Exclusion criteria were spinal surgery in the past 12 months, pregnancy,nerve root compromise, confirmed or suspected seriousspinal abnormality (for example, infection, fracture, or thecauda equina syndrome), contraindications to exercise, andpoor comprehension of the English language.
Pretreatment: Similar at baseline
Intervention Characteristics
Intervention
Kontrol
Funktionsevne 0-12 uger (Disability)
Smerteniveau 0-12 uger (Pain)
Smerteniveau 6-18 måneder (Pain)
Funktionsevne 6-18 måneder (Disability)
Frafald pga. bivirkninger
Sponsorship source: : In part by a National Health and Medical ResearchCouncil of Australia Project grant (no. 107203) and the AustralasianLow Back Pain Trial Committee. The Australasian Low Back Pain TrialCommittee comprises Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Australia, PhysiotherapyBusiness Australia, and the New Zealand Manipulative PhysiotherapistsAssociation. Drs. Maher and Herbert hold research fellowshipsfunded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.
Country: Australia and New Zealand
Setting: 7 university hospitals and primary care clinics
Comments: Title: Physiotherapist-Directed Exercise, Advice, or Both for Subacute LowBack Pain
Authors name: Liset H.M. Pengel, PhD; Kathryn M. Refshauge, PhD; Christopher G. Maher, PhD; Michael K. Nicholas, PhD; Robert D. Herbert, PhD; andPeter McNair, PhD
Institution: Centre for Evidence in Transplantation
Email:
Address: Dr. Pengel: Centre for Evidence in Trans-plantation, Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln’s InnFields, London WC2A 3PE, United Kingdom
Wrong comparator
Wrong study design
Wrong study design
Wrong intervention
Wrong intervention
Wrong intervention
Wrong intervention
Wrong intervention
Wrong study design
Wrong study design
Wrong patient population
Wrong intervention
Wrong intervention
Wrong intervention
Wrong intervention
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomised sequence
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment
Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants and personnel during the study
Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors
Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data
Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table
Describe all measures used, if any to blind outcome assessors from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective.
SR Oosterhuis 2011
SR Oosterhuis 2011
SR Oosterhuis 2011
Judgement Comment: not reported. SR Oosterhuis 2011
SR Oosterhuis 2011
State how the possibility of selective outcome reporting was examined by the review authors and what was found.
Describe the completeness of outcome data for each main outcome, including attrition and exlusions from the analysis. State whether attrition and exclusions were reported, the numbers in each intervention group (compared with total randomized participants), reasons for attrition/exclusions where reported, and any re-inclusions in analyses performed by the review authors.
Describe the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups.
No
n
State any important concerns about bias not addressed in the other domains in the tool. If particular questions/entries were re-specified in the review's protocol, responses should be provided for each question/entry.
Judgement Comment: Intention to treat analysis not performede correctly
n
Describe the method used to conceal the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to determine wether intervention allocations could have been foreseen in advance of, during, enrolement.
No
No
Describe all measures used, if any to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective.
No info