BACKGROUND: Pilates is a system of exercise focusing upon controlled movement, stretching and breathing. Pilates is popular today not only for physical fitness but also for rehabilitation programs. This paper is a review of the literature on the effectiveness of Pilates as a rehabilitation tool in a wide range of conditions in an adult population.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases were searched for cohort studies or randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The final RCTs were assessed using the PEDro and CONSORT 2010 checklists.
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies, published between 2005 and 2016, met the inclusion criteria. These papers assessed the efficacy of Pilates in the rehabilitation of low back pain, ankylosing spondylitis, multiple sclerosis, post-menopausal osteoporosis, non-structural scoliosis, hypertension and chronic neck pain. Nineteen papers found Pilates to be more effective than the control or comparator group at improving outcomes including pain and disability levels. When assessed using the CONSORT and PEDro scales, the quality of the papers varied, with more falling toward the upper end of the scale.
CONCLUSION: The majority of the clinical trials in the last five years into the use of Pilates as a rehabilitation tool have found it to be effective in achieving desired outcomes, particularly in the area of reducing pain and disability. It indicates the need for further research in these many areas, and especially into the benefits of particular Pilates exercises in the rehabilitation of specific conditions.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with nonspecific acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Pilates method is one of the most common forms of intervention based on exercise used for treating patients with low back pain. However, its effectiveness is not well established.
METHODS: We conducted searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus up to March 2014. We included randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of Pilates in patients with acute, subacute, or chronic nonspecific low back pain. The outcomes evaluated were pain, disability, function, and global impression of recovery. Two independent reviewers screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and treatment effect sizes were described using mean differences and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Searches retrieved 126 trials, of which 10 were included in the review (n = 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered at high risk of bias. When compared to minimal intervention, Pilates reduces pain at short and intermediate term with low- to moderate-quality evidence and medium effect sizes. For disability, there is also a significant difference in favor to Pilates with low- to moderate-quality evidence and small effect size for short term and medium effect size for intermediate term compared with minimal intervention. It is unclear whether Pilates is better than other exercises for short-term pain, but there is low-quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain at intermediate term. For disability, there is moderate-quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercises in either the short term or the intermediate term.
CONCLUSION: There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention with most of the effect sizes being considered medium. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Pilates is superior to other forms of exercises.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co-ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12-item criteria (Furlan 2009). We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short-term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long-term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow-up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi2 test and the I2 statistic. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long-term follow-up with medium effect sizes (long-term, MD –12.97; 95% CI –18.51 to –7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD –30.18; 95% CI –35.32 to –25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.
[Purpose] To evaluate the effects of Pilates on patients with chronic low back pain through a systematic review of high-quality articles on randomized controlled trials. [Subjects and Methods] Keywords and synonyms for "Pilates" and "Chronic low back pain" were used in database searches. The databases included PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Medline, and the Cochrane Library. Articles involving randomized controlled trials with higher than 5 points on the PEDro scale were reviewed for suitability and inclusion. The methodological quality of the included randomized controlled trials was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Relevant information was extracted by 3 reviewers. [Results] Eight randomized controlled trial articles were included. Patients with chronic low back pain showed statistically significant improvement in pain relief and functional ability compared to patients who only performed usual or routine health care. However, other forms of exercise were similar to Pilates in the improvement of pain relief and functional capacity. [Conclusion] In patients with chronic low back pain, Pilates showed significant improvement in pain relief and functional enhancement. Other exercises showed effects similar to those of Pilates, if waist or torso movement was included and the exercises were performed for 20 cumulative hours.
The Pilates method has recently become a fast-growing popular way of exercise recommended for healthy individuals and those engaged in rehabilitation. Several published studies have examined the effects of Pilates method in people with chronic low back pain (LBP).The objective of this study is to describe and provide an extensive overview of the scientific literature comparing the effectiveness of the Pilates method on pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP. The study is based on the data from the following sources: MEDLINE-NLM, MEDLINE-EBSCO, Scopus Elsevier, Cochrane, DOAJ, SciELO, and PLOSONE.Original articles and systematic reviews of adults with chronic nonspecific LBP that evaluated pain and/or disability were included in this study; studies in which the primary treatment was based on Pilates method exercises compared with no treatment, minimal intervention, other types of intervention, or other types of exercises.The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were adopted. The literature search included 7 electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and original articles to July 2014. Two independent investigators conducted the literature search and performed the synthesis as follows: Study Design; Sample (n); Disability measure; Intervention; and Main results.The searches identified a total of 128 articles. From these, 29 were considered eligible and were included in the analysis. The items were stratified as follows: Pilates method versus other kind of exercises (n = 6 trials) and Pilates method versus no treatment group or minimal intervention for short-term pain (n = 9 trials); the therapeutic effect of the Pilates method in randomized cohorts (n = 5); and analysis of reviews (n = 9).We found that there is a dearth of studies that clearly demonstrates the efficacy of a specific Pilates exercise program over another in the treatment of chronic pain. However, the consensus in the field suggests that Pilates method is more effective than minimal physical exercise intervention in reducing pain. These conclusions need to be supported by other proper investigations.
BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain is a major health problem worldwide. Interventions based on exercises have been the most commonly used treatments for patients with this condition. Over the past few years, the Pilates method has been one of the most popular exercise programmes used in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with non-specific acute, subacute or chronic low back pain.
SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus from the date of their inception to March 2014. We updated the search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers as well as six trial registry websites. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of Pilates intervention in adults with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary outcomes considered were pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent raters performed the assessment of risk of bias in the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We also assessed clinical relevance by scoring five questions related to this domain as 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and for effect sizes we used three levels: small (mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale), medium (MD 10% to 20% of the scale) or large (MD > 20% of the scale). We converted outcome measures to a common 0 to 100 scale when different scales were used.
MAIN RESULTS: The search retrieved 126 trials; 10 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and we included them in the review (a total sample of 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered as high risk of bias.A total of six trials compared Pilates to minimal intervention. There is low quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared with minimal intervention, with a medium effect size at short-term follow-up (less than three months after randomisation) (MD -14.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.91 to -9.19). For intermediate-term follow-up (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation), two trials provided moderate quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared to minimal intervention, with a medium effect size (MD -10.54, 95% CI -18.46 to -2.62). Based on five trials, there is low quality evidence that Pilates improves disability compared with minimal intervention, with a small effect size at short-term follow-up (MD -7.95, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.67), and moderate quality evidence for an intermediate-term effect with a medium effect size (MD -11.17, 95% CI -18.41 to -3.92). Based on one trial and low quality evidence, a significant short-term effect with a small effect size was reported for function (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.97) and global impression of recovery (MD 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.30), but not at intermediate-term follow-up for either outcome.Four trials compared Pilates to other exercises. For the outcome pain, we presented the results as a narrative synthesis due to the high level of heterogeneity. At short-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, two trials demonstrated a significant effect in favour of Pilates and one trial did not find a significant difference. At intermediate-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, one trial reported a significant effect in favour of Pilates, and one trial reported a non-significant difference for this comparison. For disability, there is moderate quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercise either in the short term (MD -3.29, 95% CI -6.82 to 0.24) or in the intermediate term (MD -0.91, 95% CI -5.02 to 3.20) based on two studies for each comparison. Based on low quality evidence and one trial, there was no significant difference in function between Pilates and other exercises at short-term follow-up (MD 0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.64), but there was a significant effect in favour of other exercises for intermediate-term function, with a small effect size (MD -3.60, 95% CI -7.00 to -0.20). Global impression of recovery was not assessed in this comparison and none of the trials included quality of life outcomes. Two trials assessed adverse events in this review, one did not find any adverse events, and another reported minor events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any high quality evidence for any of the treatment comparisons, outcomes or follow-up periods investigated. However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability. When Pilates was compared with other exercises we found a small effect for function at intermediate-term follow-up. Thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercises. The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs.
BACKGROUND: Proprioceptive training (PrT) is popularly applied as preventive or rehabilitative exercise method in various sports and rehabilitation settings. Its effect on pain and function is only poorly evaluated. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and analyse the existing data on the effects of PrT on pain alleviation and functional restoration in patients with chronic (≥ 3 months) neck- or back pain.
METHODS: Relevant electronic databases were searched from their respective inception to February 2014. Randomised controlled trials comparing PrT with conventional therapies or inactive controls in patients with neck- or low back pain were included. Two review authors independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias (RoB). Data extraction was performed by the first author and crosschecked by a second author. Quality of findings was assessed and rated according to GRADE guidelines. Pain and functional status outcomes were extracted and synthesised qualitatively and quantitatively.
RESULTS: In total, 18 studies involving 1380 subjects described interventions related to PrT (years 1994-2013). 6 studies focussed on neck-, 12 on low back pain. Three main directions of PrT were identified: Discriminatory perceptive exercises with somatosensory stimuli to the back (pPrT, n=2), multimodal exercises on labile surfaces (mPrT, n=13), or joint repositioning exercise with head-eye coordination (rPrT, n=3). Comparators entailed usual care, home based training, educational therapy, strengthening, stretching and endurance training, or inactive controls. Quality of studies was low and RoB was deemed moderate to high with a high prevalence of unclear sequence generation and group allocation (>60%). Low quality evidence suggests PrT may be more effective than not intervening at all. Low quality evidence suggests that PrT is no more effective than conventional physiotherapy. Low quality evidence suggests PrT is inferior to educational and behavioural approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: There are few relevant good quality studies on proprioceptive exercises. A descriptive summary of the evidence suggests that there is no consistent benefit in adding PrT to neck- and low back pain rehabilitation and functional restoration.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of Pilates exercise in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) through a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES: A search for RCTs was undertaken using Medical Search Terms and synonyms for "Pilates" and "low back pain" within the maximal date range of 10 databases. Databases included the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Cochrane Library; Medline; Physiotherapy Evidence Database; ProQuest: Health and Medical Complete, Nursing and Allied Health Source, Dissertation and Theses; Scopus; Sport Discus; Web of Science.
STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers were involved in the selection of evidence. To be included, relevant RCTs needed to be published in the English language. From 152 studies, 14 RCTs were included.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers appraised the methodological quality of RCTs using the McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies. The author(s), year of publication, and details regarding participants, Pilates exercise, comparison treatments, and outcome measures, and findings, were then extracted.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The methodological quality of RCTs ranged from "poor" to "excellent". A meta-analysis of RCTs was not undertaken due to the heterogeneity of RCTs. Pilates exercise provided statistically significant improvements in pain and functional ability compared to usual care and physical activity between 4 and 15 weeks, but not at 24 weeks. There were no consistent statistically significant differences in improvements in pain and functional ability with Pilates exercise, massage therapy, or other forms of exercise at any time period.
CONCLUSIONS: Pilates exercise offers greater improvements in pain and functional ability compared to usual care and physical activity in the short term. Pilates exercise offers equivalent improvements to massage therapy and other forms of exercise. Future research should explore optimal Pilates exercise designs, and whether some people with CLBP may benefit from Pilates exercise more than others.
BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is a large and costly problem. It has a lifetime prevalence of 80% and results in high levels of healthcare cost. It is a major cause for long term sickness amongst the workforce and is associated with high levels of fear avoidance and kinesiophobia. Stabilisation (or 'core stability') exercises have been suggested to reduce symptoms of pain and disability and form an effective treatment. Despite it being the most commonly used form of physiotherapy treatment within the UK there is a lack of positive evidence to support its use. The aims of this systematic review update is to investigate the effectiveness of stabilisation exercises for the treatment of NSLBP, and compare any effectiveness to other forms of exercise.
METHODS: A systematic review published in 2008 was updated with a search of PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, Pedro and The Cochrane Library, October 2006 to October 2013. Two authors independently selected studies, and two authors independently extracted the data. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis was carried out when appropriate.
RESULTS: 29 studies were included: 22 studies (n = 2,258) provided post treatment effect on pain and 24 studies (n = 2,359) provided post treatment effect on disability. Pain and disability scores were transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. Meta-analysis showed significant benefit for stabilisation exercises versus any alternative treatment or control for long term pain and disability with mean difference of -6.39 (95% CI -10.14 to -2.65) and -3.92 (95% CI -7.25 to -0.59) respectively. The difference between groups was clinically insignificant. When compared with alternative forms of exercise, there was no statistical or clinically significant difference. Mean difference for pain was -3.06 (95% CI -6.74 to 0.63) and disability -1.89 (95% CI -5.10 to 1.33).
CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence stabilisation exercises are not more effective than any other form of active exercise in the long term. The low levels of heterogeneity and large number of high methodological quality of available studies, at long term follow-up, strengthen our current findings, and further research is unlikely to considerably alter this conclusion.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available evidence on the efficacy of the Pilates method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.
METHOD: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, LILACS, CINAHL and CENTRAL in March 2013. Randomized controlled trials that tested the effectiveness of the Pilates method (against a nontreatment group, minimal intervention or other types of interventions) in adults with chronic low back pain were included regardless the language of publication. The outcome data were extracted from the eligible studies and were combined using a meta-analysis approach.
RESULTS: The searches identified a total of 1,545 articles. From these, eight trials were considered eligible, and seven trials were combined in the meta-analysis. The comparison groups were as follows: Pilates versus other types of exercises (n=2 trials), and Pilates versus no treatment group or minimal intervention (n=4 trials) for short term pain; Pilates versus minimal intervention for short-term disability (n=4).We determined that Pilates was not better than other types of exercises for reducing pain intensity. However, Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing short-term pain and disability (pain: pooled mean difference=1.6 points; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8; disability: pooled mean difference=5.2 points; 95% CI 4.3 to 6.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Pilates was not better than other types of exercise for short-term pain reduction.
Pilates is a system of exercise focusing upon controlled movement, stretching and breathing. Pilates is popular today not only for physical fitness but also for rehabilitation programs. This paper is a review of the literature on the effectiveness of Pilates as a rehabilitation tool in a wide range of conditions in an adult population.
METHODS:
A systematic literature review was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases were searched for cohort studies or randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The final RCTs were assessed using the PEDro and CONSORT 2010 checklists.
RESULTS:
Twenty-three studies, published between 2005 and 2016, met the inclusion criteria. These papers assessed the efficacy of Pilates in the rehabilitation of low back pain, ankylosing spondylitis, multiple sclerosis, post-menopausal osteoporosis, non-structural scoliosis, hypertension and chronic neck pain. Nineteen papers found Pilates to be more effective than the control or comparator group at improving outcomes including pain and disability levels. When assessed using the CONSORT and PEDro scales, the quality of the papers varied, with more falling toward the upper end of the scale.
CONCLUSION:
The majority of the clinical trials in the last five years into the use of Pilates as a rehabilitation tool have found it to be effective in achieving desired outcomes, particularly in the area of reducing pain and disability. It indicates the need for further research in these many areas, and especially into the benefits of particular Pilates exercises in the rehabilitation of specific conditions.
