Table 2

Network meta-analysis consistency models for pain, physical function, mental health and muscle strength in studies examining the efficacy of exercise training in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain

Treatment typeComparison to ‘no treatment’Likelihood (%) of being…SUCRA (%)
Pooled SMD (95% CI)P valueBestWorst
Pain
 CON: True control0.037.010
 INT: Aerobic−1.41 (−2.43 to −0.40)0.00616.60.280
 INT: Other−1.07 (−1.67 to −0.47)0.0011.30.060
 CON: Hands-off0.09 (−0.71 to 0.89)0.8270.056.610
 CON: Hands-on−0.69 (−1.39 to 0.01)0.0540.01.130
 INT: Water-based−0.91 (−1.85 to 0.03)0.0572.51.150
 INT: McKenzie−0.81 (−1.74 to 0.11)0.0831.11.840
 INT: Multimodal−0.99 (−1.55 to −0.44)<0.0010.10.050
 INT: Pilates−1.86 (−2.54 to −1.19)<0.00168.90.0100
 INT: Resistance−1.14 (−1.86 to −0.42)0.0022.40.060
 INT: Stabilisation−1.31 (−1.75 to −0.87)<0.0012.00.080
 INT: Stretching−0.62 (−1.38 to 0.13)0.1070.31.730
 INT: Yoga−0.99 (−2.00 to 0.03)0.0564.70.550
Physical function
 CON: True control0.059.40
 INT: Aerobic−0.85 (−1.62 to −0.09)0.0299.31.060
 INT: Other−0.72 (−1.32 to −0.13)0.0172.40.550
 CON: Hands-off−0.31 (−0.94 to 0.32)0.3400.012.720
 CON: Hands-on−0.49 (−1.08 to 0.10)0.1020.03.230
 INT: Water-based−1.00 (−1.67 to −0.32)0.00418.10.170
 INT: McKenzie−0.27 (−1.02 to 0.47)0.4710.420.020
 INT: Multimodal−0.75 (−1.23 to −0.27)0.0020.50.050
 INT: Pilates−0.92 (−1.48 to −0.36)0.0018.00.070
 INT: Resistance−1.14 (−1.71 to −0.56)<0.00127.50.080
 INT: Stabilisation−1.13 (−1.53 to −0.74)<0.00118.70.080
 INT: Stretching−0.55 (−1.20 to 0.10)0.0951.32.940
 INT: Yoga−0.92 (−1.66 to −0.18)0.01513.90.170
Mental health
 CON: True control0.068.110
 INT: Aerobic−1.18 (−2.20 to −0.15)0.02432.90.280
 CON: Hands-on−0.31 (−1.31 to 0.70)0.5520.226.620
 INT: Multimodal−0.75 (−1.61 to 0.11)0.0868.32.850
 INT: Pilates−0.84 (−1.71 to 0.02)0.05613.41.760
 INT: Resistance−1.26 (−2.10 to −0.41)0.00340.00.080
 INT: Stabilisation−0.78 (−1.49 to −0.07)0.0315.20.550
Muscle strength
 CON: True control8.065.620
 INT: Resistance0.18 (−0.27 to 0.64)0.42742.917.060
 INT: Stabilisation0.21 (−0.28 to 0.69)0.39949.117.470
  • The significance of the difference of the effect estimate (SMD) compared with ‘no treatment’ control is indicated by the p value. The likelihood of being the best or worst treatment is indicated as a percentage and this is best summarised by the SUCRA which ranges from 0% to 100%. The SUCRA measure assesses the likely ranks of all treatments and the higher the SUCRA percentage, the more likely that therapy is one of the most effective.

  • CON, control; INT, exercise training intervention; SMD, standardised mean difference; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curves.