Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of findings of comparison III (multimodal proprioceptive Training (mPrT) versus inactive controls, educational approach 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 3.1 Inactive control mPrT    
Pain intensity various scales short-term follow-up   The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 0.55 standard deviations lower (0.98 to 0.13 lower) 329(4 studies) +++04moderate  
Pain intensity various scales long-term follow-up   The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 0.36 standard deviations lower (0.65 to 0.08 lower) 247(2 studies) ++002,4 low One additional study did not quantify this outcome but reported no difference between groups.
Back specific functional status various scales short-term follow-up   The mean functional status in the intervention group was 1.39 standard deviations lower (2.95 lower to 0.16 higher). 246 (2 studies) ++002,4 low One additional study did not quantify this outcome but reported no difference between groups.
Back specific functional status various scales long-term follow-up   The mean functional status in the intervention group was 0.44 standard deviations lower (1.80 lower to 0.92 higher). 246 (2 studies) +++02 moderate One additional study did not quantify this outcome but reported no difference between groups.
Comparison 3.2 Other exercise mPrT N (studies) GRADE Comments
Pain intensity various scales short-term follow-up   The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 0.40 standard deviations lower (0.84 lower to 0.05 higher) 465 (8 studies) ++002,4 low  
Pain intensity various scales long-term follow-up The mean pain intensity of the control group was 35.7 points. The mean pain intensity in the intervention group of one study was 13.4 points higher (5.96 to 20.84 higher). 122 (1 studies) ++002,4 low One additional study did not quantify this outcome but reported no difference between groups.
Back specific functional status various scales short-term follow-up   The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 0.45 standard deviations lower (0.83 to 0.08 lower) 466 (8 studies) ++002,4 low One additional study did not quantify this outcome but reported no difference between groups.
Back specific functional status various scales long-term follow-up The mean pain intensity of the control group was 16.2 points. The mean pain intensity in the intervention group of one study was 3.2 points higher (1.55 lower to 7.95 higher). 107 (1 studies) ++002,3 low One additional study did not quantify this outcome but reported no difference between groups.
Comparison 3.3 Educational approach mPrT N (studies) GRADE Comments
Pain intensity VAS scales (0–10) short-term follow-up The mean pain intensity of the control group was 4.9 points. The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 0.30 points higher (0.32 lower to 0.92 higher). 185 (1 study) ++002,3,§ low  
Pain intensity various scales long-term follow-up The mean pain intensity of the control group was 4.5 points. The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 0.30 points higher (0.40 lower to 1.00 higher). 164 (1 study) ++002,3,§ low  
Back specific functional status LBP rating scale short-term follow-up The mean score on the LBP rating scale of the control group was 11.6 points. The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 1.40 points higher (0.33 lower to 3.13 higher). 185 (1 study) ++002,3,§ low  
Back specific functional status LBP rating scale long-term follow-up The mean score on the LBP rating scale of the control group was 11.0 points. The mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 2.00 points higher (0.06 to 3.94 higher). 164 (1 study) ++002,3,§ low  
  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.