Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of findings of comparison II (joint repositioning training (rPrT) 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 2.1 Inactive control rPrT    
Pain intensity VAS (0 to 10) scales short-term follow-up The mean pain intensity ranged across control groups from 4.8 to 7.5 points The mean pain intensity in the intervention groups was 1.6 points lower (3.6 lower to 0.3 higher) 88(2 studies) +000very low1,2,4  
Comparison 2.2 Other exercise rPrT N (studies) GRADE Comments
Pain intensity Numeric Pain Rating (0–10) short-term follow-up The mean pain intensity of the control group was reduced by 2.8 points. The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 0.90 points higher (0.16 lower to 1.96 higher). 58(1 study) ++00 low2,3,§  
Back specific functional status Neck Disability Index (0–50) short-term follow-up The mean NDI score of the control group was reduced by 8.4 points. The mean NDI score in the intervention group was 1.50 points higher (2.06 lower to 5.06 higher). 58 (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.