Characteristics of the presented summaries
| Summary number | Reporting method(s) used | Reported results |
|---|---|---|
| 1a | Difference in means and standardised mean difference | A net difference of 8 points (95% CI = 4 to 12), where standardised mean difference = 0.4 |
| 1b | Difference in means, with MICa (for an individual) reported | A net difference of 8 points (95% CI = 4 to 12) |
| 2 | Numbers and proportion improved | 125/287, or 44% (38 to 49), experienced an improvement ≥MIC in the physical behavioural praxis group, 62/256, or 24% (19 to 29), experienced an improvement ≥MICa in the GP care group. The percentage difference was 19% (12 to 27) |
| 3 | Relative risk for an improvement ≥MICa | 1.8 (95% CI = 1.4 to 2.3) |
| 4 | Odds ratio for an improvement ≥MICa | 2.4 (95% CI = 1.7 to 3.5) |
| 5a | Number needed to treat for an additional improvement of ≥MICa | 5.2 (95% CI = 3.7 to 8.7) |
| 5b | Number needed to treat for either an additional improvement of ≥MICa, or a deterioration of ≤MICa prevented | 5.1 (95% CI = 3.6 to 9.1) |
↵a Minimally important change (MIC) = 25 points of a 100-point scale. Assumption: MIC for MIC for deterioration is equal in magnitude to MIC for improvement. These were rescaled outcomes from the manual therapy arm of the UK Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (BEAM) trial.12