Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of findings of comparison I (perceptual proprioceptive training versus inactive controls or other exercise)

From: Effects of proprioceptive exercises on pain and function in chronic neck- and low back pain rehabilitation: a systematic literature review

Patient or population: adults with non-specific chronic low-back pain; Settings: primary and secondary health care centres

Outcomes

Illustrative means (95% CI)

N (studies)

GRADE

Comments

Control group

Intervention group

   

Comparison 1.1

Inactive control

pPrT

   

Pain intensity VAS (0–10) short-term follow-up

The mean pain intensity of the control group was 7.32 points.

The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 3.16 points lower (4.7 to 1.95 lower).

50 (1 study)

++00low2,3,§

Significant

Pain intensity VAS (0–10) long-term follow-up

The mean pain intensity of the control group was 7.48 points.

The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 3.04 points lower (4.38 to 1.70 lower).

45 (1 study)

++00low2,3

Significant

Back specific functional status ODI short-term follow-up

The mean pain intensity of the control group was 24.32 points.

The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 4.48 points lower (11.83 lower to 2.87 higher).

50 (1 study)

++00low2,3

Non-significant

Back specific functional status ODI long-term follow-up

The mean pain intensity of the control group was 26.08 points.

The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 6.38 points lower (14.98 lower to 2.22 higher).

45 (1 study)

++00low1,3

Non-significant

Comparison 1.2

Other exercise

pPrT

N (studies)

GRADE

Comments

Pain intensity various scales short-term follow-up

 

The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 1.15 standard deviations lower (2.93 to 0.63 lower).

80 (2 studies)

000 + very low2,3,4

 

Pain intensity various scales long-term follow-up

The mean pain intensity of the control group was 4.44 points.

The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 0.01 points higher (1.55 lower to 1.57 higher).

45 (1 study)

++00 low2,3,§

 

Back specific functional status various scales short-term follow-up

The mean ODI score of the control group was 19.04 points.

The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 0.8 points higher (5.80 lower to 7.40 higher).

50 (1 study)

++00 low2,3,§

 

Back specific functional status various scales long-term follow-up

The mean ODI score of the control group was 14.72 points.

The mean ODI score in the intervention group was 4.98 points higher (2.68 lower to 12.64 higher).

45(1 study)

++00 low2,3,§

 
  1. N = total number of patients; CI = Confidence Interval; 1Serious limitations in study design (i.e. >25% of participants from studies with high risk of bias); 2Serious imprecision (i.e. total number of participants <300 for each outcome or only one study available for comparison); 3Indirectness of population (e.g. only one study), intervention (applicability) and outcome measures; 4Serious inconsistency (i.e. significant statistical heterogeneity or opposite direction of effects). §Only one study, consistency cannot be evaluated.
  2. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
  3. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
  4. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
  5. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
  6. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
Back to article page

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us