OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to systematically review and apply regression analysis to randomised controlled trials [RCTs] that evaluated the effectiveness of Pilates exercise in improving persistent, non-specific low back pain and functional disability. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from January 1950 to March 2011. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were RCTs comparing Pilates exercise with a placebo treatment [PT], minimal intervention [MI] or another physiotherapeutic treatment [APT]. RESULTS: Nine trials were included. Pilates was moderately superior to APT (pooled Effect Size [ES] weighted = -0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.08 to -1.03) in reducing disability but not for pain relief. Pilates provided moderate to superior pain relief compared to MI (pooled ES weighted = -0.44, 95% CI = -0.09 to -0.80) and a similar decrease in disability. The statistical model used did not detect any predictor variable. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the presence of co-interventions and the low methodological quality of some studies, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Crown
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to systematically review and apply regression analysis to randomised controlled trials [RCTs] that evaluated the effectiveness of Pilates exercise in improving persistent, non-specific low back pain and functional disability. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from January 1950 to March 2011. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were RCTs comparing Pilates exercise with a placebo treatment [PT], minimal intervention [MI] or another physiotherapeutic treatment [APT]. RESULTS: Nine trials were included. Pilates was moderately superior to APT (pooled Effect Size [ES] weighted = -0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.08 to -1.03) in reducing disability but not for pain relief. Pilates provided moderate to superior pain relief compared to MI (pooled ES weighted = -0.44, 95% CI = -0.09 to -0.80) and a similar decrease in disability. The statistical model used did not detect any predictor variable. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the presence of co-interventions and the low methodological quality of some studies, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Crown
Authors: Wilhelmus Johannes Andreas Grooten; Carina Boström; Åsa Dedering; Marie Halvorsen; Roman P Kuster; Lena Nilsson-Wikmar; Christina B Olsson; Graciela Rovner; Elena Tseli; Eva Rasmussen-Barr Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 2.562
Authors: Wei-Ju Chang; Neil E O'Connell; Emma Burns; Lucy S Chipchase; Matthew B Liston; Siobhan M Schabrun Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Antonino Patti; Antonino Bianco; Antonio Paoli; Giuseppe Messina; Maria Alessandra Montalto; Marianna Bellafiore; Giuseppe Battaglia; Angelo Iovane; Antonio Palma Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Opeyemi O Babatunde; Joanne L Jordan; Danielle A Van der Windt; Jonathan C Hill; Nadine E Foster; Joanne Protheroe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Cherie Wells; Gregory S Kolt; Paul Marshall; Bridget Hill; Andrea Bialocerkowski Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2013-01-19 Impact factor: 4.615