Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Funnel plot of comparison: motor control exercise versus other exercises, outcome: Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Funnel plot of comparison: motor control exercise versus other exercises, outcome: Pain.

Funnel plot of comparison: Motor control exercise versus other exercises, outcome: Disability.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Funnel plot of comparison: Motor control exercise versus other exercises, outcome: Disability.

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 2 Disability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 2 Disability.

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 3 Function.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 3 Function.

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 4 Global impression of recovery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 4 Global impression of recovery.

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 5 Quality of life (physical component summary).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 5 Quality of life (physical component summary).

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 6 Quality of life (mental component summary).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 6 Quality of life (mental component summary).

Comparison 2 Motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 2 Motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 2 Disability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 2 Disability.

Comparison 2 Motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 3 Function.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 3 Function.

Comparison 2 Motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 4 Global impression of recovery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 4 Global impression of recovery.

Comparison 3 Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 3 Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 2 Disability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 2 Disability.

Comparison 3 Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 3 Function.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 3 Function.

Comparison 3 Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 4 Global impression of recovery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 4 Global impression of recovery.

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 2 Disability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 2 Disability.

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 3 Global impression of recovery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 3 Global impression of recovery.

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 4 Quality of life (physical component summary).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 4 Quality of life (physical component summary).

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 5 Quality of life (mental component summary).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA, Outcome 5 Quality of life (mental component summary).

Comparison 5 Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 5 Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation, Outcome 2 Disability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation, Outcome 2 Disability.

Comparison 5 Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation, Outcome 3 Quality of life (mental component summary).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation, Outcome 3 Quality of life (mental component summary).

Comparison 5 Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation, Outcome 4 Quality of life (physical component summary).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation, Outcome 4 Quality of life (physical component summary).

Comparison 6 Sensitivity analysis 1: motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Sensitivity analysis 1: motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 6 Sensitivity analysis 1: motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 2 Disability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Sensitivity analysis 1: motor control exercise versus other exercises, Outcome 2 Disability.

Comparison 7 Sensitivity analysis 2: motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Sensitivity analysis 2: motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 7 Sensitivity analysis 2: motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 2 Disability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Sensitivity analysis 2: motor control exercise versus minimal intervention, Outcome 2 Disability.

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis 3: motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis 3: motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis 3: motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 2 Disability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis 3: motor control exercise versus manual therapy, Outcome 2 Disability.

Motor control exercise compared with other exercises for chronic low back pain

Patient or population: patients with non‐specific chronic low back pain

Settings: primary or tertiary care

Intervention: motor control exercise

Comparison: other exercises

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Other exercises

Motor control exercise

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Short‐term follow‐up (< 3 months from randomisation)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

10.5 to 48 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
7.43 points lower

(10.47 to 4.40 lower)

872 participants

(13 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Intermediate follow‐up (> 3 months and < 12 months)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

17.8 to 48 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
4.88 points lower

(8.14 to 1.62 lower)

588 participants

(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Long‐term follow‐up (> 12 months from randomisation)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

26.6 to 52 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
2.69 points lower

(6.90 lower to 1.53 higher)

643 participants

(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Short‐term follow‐up (< 3 months from randomisation)

The mean disability ranged across control groups from

11 to 40.4 points

The mean disability in the intervention groups was
4.84 points lower

(7.02 to 2.65 lower)

794 participants

(11 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
low1,2

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Intermediate follow‐up (> 3 months and < 12 months)

The mean disability ranged across control groups from

8 to 42.1 points

The mean disability in the intervention groups was
4.17 points lower

(8.12 to 0.23 lower)

588 participants

(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Long‐term follow‐up (> 12 months from randomisation)

The mean disability ranged across control groups from

27.1 to 40 points

The mean disability in the intervention groups was
0.71 points lower

(4.87 lower to 3.45 higher)

570 participants

(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Adverse events

See comment

See comment

See comment

2 trials reported mild adverse events

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; VAS: visual analogue scale

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded due to risk of bias (> 25% of the participants from trials with a high risk of bias).

2Downgraded due to publication bias.

Figures and Tables -

Motor control exercise compared with manual therapy for chronic low back pain

Patient or population: patients with non‐specific chronic low back pain

Settings: primary or tertiary care

Intervention: motor control exercise

Comparison: manual therapy

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Manual therapy

Motor control exercise

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Short‐term follow‐up (< 3 months from randomisation)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

27.2 to 41 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
4.36 points lower

(9.52 lower to 0.81 higher)

282 participants
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Intermediate follow‐up (> 3 months and < 12 months)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

26.7 to 43 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
7.05 points lower

(14.20 lower to 0.11 higher)

485 participants
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate2

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Long‐term follow‐up (> 12 months from randomisation)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

26.2 to 49 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
3.67 points lower

(9.28 lower to 1.94 higher)

406 participants
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Short‐term follow‐up (< 3 months from randomisation)

The mean disability ranged across control groups from

14 to 32.9 points

The mean disability in the intervention groups was
2.79 points lower

(6.60 lower to 1.02 higher)

282 participants
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Intermediate follow‐up (> 3 months and < 12 months)

The mean disability ranged across control groups from

14 to 33.3 points

The mean disability in the intervention groups was
3.28 points lower

(6.97 lower to 0.40 higher)

485 participants
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Long‐term follow‐up (> 12 months from randomisation)

The mean disability ranged across control groups from

14.3 to 38.3 points

The mean disability in the intervention groups was
3.40 points lower

(7.87 lower to 1.07 higher)

406 participants
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Adverse events

See comment

See comment

See comment

None of the included trials reported any relevant adverse events

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; VAS: visual analogue scale

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded due to imprecision.

2Downgraded due to inconsistency.

Figures and Tables -

Motor control exercise compared with minimal intervention for chronic low back pain

Patient or population: patients with non‐specific chronic low back pain

Settings: primary or tertiary care

Intervention: motor control exercise

Comparison: minimal intervention

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Minimal intervention

Motor control exercise

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Short‐term follow‐up (< 3 months from randomisation)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

9.4 to 56 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
10.01 points lower

(15.67 to 4.35 lower)

291 participants
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Intermediate follow‐up (> 3 months and < 12 months)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

30.3 to 56 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
12.61 points lower

(20.53 to 4.69 lower)

348 participants
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Long‐term follow‐up (> 12 months from randomisation)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

26.6 to 50.9 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
12.97 points lower

(18.51 to 7.42 lower)

279 participants
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Short‐term follow‐up (< 3 months from randomisation)

The mean disability ranged across control groups from

17.5 to 49.6 points

The mean disability in the intervention groups was
8.63 points lower

(14.78 to 2.47 lower)

332 participants
(5 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2,3

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Intermediate follow‐up (> 3 months and < 12 months)

The mean disability ranged across control groups from

0.1 to 50.8 points

The mean disability in the intervention groups was
5.47 points lower

(9.17 to 1.77 lower)

348 participants
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Long‐term follow‐up (> 12 months from randomisation)

The mean disability ranged across control groups from

14.9 to 51.3 points

The mean disability in the intervention groups was
5.96 points lower

(9.81 to 2.11 lower)

279 participants
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Adverse events

See comment

See comment

See comment

One trial reported mild adverse events

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; VAS: visual analogue scale

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded due to imprecision.

2Downgraded due to inconsistency.

3Downgraded due to risk of bias (> 25% of the participants from trials with a high risk of bias).

Figures and Tables -

Motor control exercise compared with a combination of exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for chronic low back pain

Patient or population: patients with non‐specific chronic low back pain

Settings: primary or tertiary care

Intervention: motor control exercise

Comparison: exercise and EPA

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Exercise and EPA

Motor control exercise

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Short‐term follow‐up (< 3 months from randomisation)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

43.3 to 57.1 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
30.18 points lower

(35.32 to 25.05 lower)

68 participants
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

Pain

VAS (0 to 100)

Intermediate follow‐up (> 3 months and < 12 months)

The mean pain ranged across control groups from

28.7 to 58.1 points

The mean pain in the intervention groups was
19.39 points lower

(36.83 to 1.96 lower)

179 participants
(2 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2,3

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Short‐term follow‐up (< 3 months from randomisation)

The mean disability in the control group was

34.54 points

The mean disability in the intervention group was
20.83 points lower

(28.07 to 13.59 lower)

38 participants

(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2,3

Disability

Multiple scales (0 to 100)

Intermediate follow‐up (> 3 months and < 12 months)

The mean disability in the control group was

26.79 points

The mean disability in the intervention group was
11.50 points lower

(20.69 to 2.31 lower)

38 participants

(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,3

Adverse events

See comment

See comment

See comment

None of the included trials reported any relevant adverse events

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; EPA: electrophysical agents; VAS: visual analogue scale

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded due to imprecision.

2Downgraded due to indirectness.

3Downgraded due to inconsistency.

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Motor control exercise versus other exercises

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

16

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

13

872

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.53 [‐10.54, ‐4.52]

1.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

6

588

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.98 [‐6.96, 0.99]

1.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

5

643

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.69 [‐6.90, 1.53]

2 Disability Show forest plot

14

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

11

794

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.82 [‐6.95, ‐2.68]

2.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

6

588

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.88 [‐6.92, 1.15]

2.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

4

570

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.71 [‐4.87, 3.45]

3 Function Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

3

361

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

7.29 [1.53, 13.04]

3.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

2

332

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.31 [‐0.83, 1.44]

3.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

2

332

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [‐1.36, 2.41]

4 Global impression of recovery Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

2

332

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [‐0.88, 2.65]

4.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

2

332

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.22, 0.82]

4.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

2

332

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [‐0.03, 1.08]

5 Quality of life (physical component summary) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

172

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐3.80, 3.80]

5.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

172

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.40 [‐2.61, 5.41]

5.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

2

269

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐3.14, 3.30]

6 Quality of life (mental component summary) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

172

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐3.39, 3.79]

6.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

172

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐5.32, 1.32]

6.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

2

269

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.75 [‐3.33, 1.83]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Motor control exercise versus other exercises
Comparison 2. Motor control exercise versus manual therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

3

282

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.36 [‐9.52, 0.81]

1.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

4

485

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.05 [‐14.20, 0.11]

1.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

4

406

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.67 [‐9.28, 1.94]

2 Disability Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

3

282

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.79 [‐6.60, 1.02]

2.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

4

485

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.28 [‐6.97, 0.40]

2.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

4

406

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.40 [‐7.87, 1.07]

3 Function Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

160

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐1.82, 2.22]

3.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

160

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐3.01, 1.21]

3.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

1

160

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐1.61, 2.61]

4 Global impression of recovery Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

160

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐0.12, 1.12]

4.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

160

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.58, 0.98]

4.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

1

160

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [‐0.24, 1.44]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Motor control exercise versus manual therapy
Comparison 3. Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

6

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

4

291

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐10.01 [‐15.67, ‐4.35]

1.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

4

348

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐12.61 [‐20.53, ‐4.69]

1.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

3

279

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐12.97 [‐18.51, ‐7.42]

2 Disability Show forest plot

7

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

5

332

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐8.63 [‐14.78, ‐2.47]

2.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

4

348

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐5.47 [‐9.17, ‐1.77]

2.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

3

279

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐5.96 [‐9.81, ‐2.11]

3 Function Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

154

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.36, 1.84]

3.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

154

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.16, 1.84]

3.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

1

154

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.50 [0.68, 2.32]

4 Global impression of recovery Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

154

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.3 [0.30, 2.30]

4.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

154

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.2 [0.31, 2.09]

4.3 Long‐term (> 12 months)

1

154

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.61, 2.39]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Motor control exercise versus minimal intervention
Comparison 4. Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

2

68

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐30.18 [‐35.32, ‐25.05]

1.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

2

179

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐19.39 [‐36.83, ‐1.96]

2 Disability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐20.83 [‐28.07, ‐13.59]

2.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐11.5 [‐20.69, ‐2.31]

3 Global impression of recovery Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.85 [1.09, 2.61]

3.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.67 [0.89, 2.45]

4 Quality of life (physical component summary) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

8.40 [2.68, 14.12]

4.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

8.0 [2.25, 13.75]

5 Quality of life (mental component summary) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.48 [‐2.17, 7.13]

5.2 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.64 [‐2.95, 6.23]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Motor control exercise versus exercise and EPA
Comparison 5. Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Disability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Quality of life (mental component summary) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Quality of life (physical component summary) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Motor control exercise versus telerehabilitation
Comparison 6. Sensitivity analysis 1: motor control exercise versus other exercises

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

12

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

10

652

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.80 [‐11.97, ‐3.63]

1.2 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

5

558

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.53 [‐6.65, 1.59]

2 Disability Show forest plot

10

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

8

574

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.27 [‐6.58, ‐1.96]

2.2 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

5

558

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.64 [‐6.37, 1.09]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 6. Sensitivity analysis 1: motor control exercise versus other exercises
Comparison 7. Sensitivity analysis 2: motor control exercise versus minimal intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

2

225

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐12.11 [‐17.98, ‐6.25]

1.2 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

3

323

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐9.15 [‐14.89, ‐3.41]

2 Disability Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

2

225

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.84 [‐12.07, ‐3.61]

2.2 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

3

323

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.82 [‐10.96, 1.32]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 7. Sensitivity analysis 2: motor control exercise versus minimal intervention
Comparison 8. Sensitivity analysis 3: motor control exercise versus manual therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

2

241

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.49 [‐9.54, 2.55]

1.2 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

3

452

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐5.51 [‐13.94, 2.92]

1.3 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Long‐term (> 12 months)

3

375

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.60 [‐8.71, 3.50]

2 Disability Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Short‐term (< 3 months from randomisation)

2

241

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.54 [‐7.20, 2.13]

2.2 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Intermediate (≥ 3 to 12 months)

3

452

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.51 [‐6.74, 1.72]

2.3 High quality (≥ 6 'Risk of bias' items) ‐ Long‐term (> 12 months)

3

375

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.07 [‐7.44, 3.30]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 8. Sensitivity analysis 3: motor control exercise versus manual therapy