Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Editorial comment on discussion: ‘Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating low back pain? Network meta-analysis’
  1. Karim M Khan
  1. Department of Family Practice & School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Karim M Khan, Family Practice & Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada; karim.khan{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The BJSM recently published1 a network meta-analysis (NMA) on the effect of different modes of exercise training in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

The emergence of NMA in sport and exercise medicine2 represents important strides towards a ‘shift in what constitutes the highest level of medical evidence’.3 Given the novelty of NMA, frank scientific debate about strengths and limitations is a good thing. A discussion article by Maher and colleagues posed questions about the published NMA.4 As part of our due diligence at BJSM, we posted an Expression of Concern5 on the basis of the Maher et al’s comments—we flagged that there were questions and we wanted time to consider those questions. An Expression of Concern merely flags to readers that the journal is taking a query seriously. The authors of the NMA addressed all of Maher’s points6 and BJSM recently broadcast the findings of the NMA with an Infographic.7 We also posted a podcast about the NMA and related research …

View Full Text


  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. A bracket has been removed from within the content.

  • Contributors I, Karim Khan, am the sole author of this paper.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles