Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain

  1. Jill Hayden1,*,
  2. Maurits W van Tulder2,
  3. Antti Malmivaara3,
  4. Bart W Koes4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Back Group

Published Online: 17 FEB 2010

Assessed as up-to-date: 30 SEP 2004

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000335.pub2

Database Title

Additional Information

How to Cite

Hayden J, van Tulder MW, Malmivaara A, Koes BW. Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD000335. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000335.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Dalhousie University, Dept. of Community Health & Epidemiology, Halifax, NS, Canada

  2. 2

    VU University, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  3. 3

    National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Centre for Health Economics CHESS, Helsinki, Finland

  4. 4

    Erasmus Medical Center, Department of General Practice, Rotterdam, Netherlands

*Jill Hayden, Dept. of Community Health & Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, 5790 University Avenue, Room 222, Halifax, NS, B3H 1V7, Canada. jhayden@dal.ca.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 17 FEB 2010

SEARCH

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Summary (58K)Standard (731K)Full (1044K)
[Figure 1]
Figure 1.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Chronic populations, Outcome 1 Function measure (/100): Earliest follow-up.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Chronic populations, Outcome 2 Function measure (/100): Short-term follow-up (˜6 weeks post-randomization).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Chronic populations, Outcome 3 Function measure (/100): Intermediate follow-up (˜6 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Chronic populations, Outcome 4 Function measure (/100): Long-term follow-up (˜12 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Chronic populations, Outcome 5 Pain measure (/100): Earliest follow-up.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Chronic populations, Outcome 6 Pain measure (/100): Short-term follow-up (˜6 weeks post-randomization).
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Chronic populations, Outcome 7 Pain measure (/100): Intermediate follow-up (˜6 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Chronic populations, Outcome 8 Pain measure (/100): Long-term follow-up (˜12 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Subacute populations, Outcome 1 Function measure (/100): Earliest follow-up.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Subacute populations, Outcome 2 Function measure (/100): Short-term follow-up (˜6 weeks post-randomization).
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Subacute populations, Outcome 3 Function measure (/100): Intermediate follow-up (˜6 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Subacute populations, Outcome 4 Function measure (/100): Long-term follow-up (˜12 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Subacute populations, Outcome 5 Pain measure (/100): Earliest follow-up.
[Analysis 2.6]
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Subacute populations, Outcome 6 Pain measure (/100): Short-term follow-up (˜6 weeks post-randomization).
[Analysis 2.7]
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Subacute populations, Outcome 7 Pain measure (/100): Intermediate follow-up (˜6 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 2.8]
Analysis 2.8. Comparison 2 Subacute populations, Outcome 8 Pain measure (/100): Long-term follow-up (˜12 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Acute populations, Outcome 1 Pain measure (/100): Earliest follow-up.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Acute populations, Outcome 2 Pain measure (/100): Short-term follow-up (˜6 weeks post-randomization).
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Acute populations, Outcome 3 Pain measure (/100): Intermediate follow-up (˜6 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Acute populations, Outcome 4 Pain measure (/100): Long-term follow-up (˜12 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 Acute populations, Outcome 5 Function measure (/100): Earliest follow-up.
[Analysis 3.6]
Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 Acute populations, Outcome 6 Function measure (/100): Short-term follow-up (˜6 weeks post-randomization).
[Analysis 3.7]
Analysis 3.7. Comparison 3 Acute populations, Outcome 7 Function measure (/100): Intermediate follow-up (˜6 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 3.8]
Analysis 3.8. Comparison 3 Acute populations, Outcome 8 Function measure (/100): Long-term follow-up (˜12 months post-randomization).
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 POPULATION SOURCE: Chronic populations (Exploratory analysis), Outcome 1 Function measure (/100); Earliest follow-up: Indirect comparisons.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 POPULATION SOURCE: Chronic populations (Exploratory analysis), Outcome 2 Pain measure (/100); Earliest follow-up: Indirect comparisons.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Methodological Quality of Included Studies, Outcome 1 criteria met.
View Full Article (HTML) Summary (58K)Standard (731K)Full (1044K)