Examination of a Subgroup of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Likely to Benefit More From Pilates-Based Exercises Compared to an Educational Booklet

Effectiveness of Pilates exercise on low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Low back pain is the most frequently reported musculoskeletal disorder and represents one of the highest patient burdens in healthcare. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Pilates exercise on pain intensity and functional disability caused by low back pain (LBP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. Data sources: MEDLINE-NLM and MEDLINE-EBSCO. We also searched on Scopus Elsevier, Cochrane, DOAJ, SciELO, PEDro, and PLOS ONE databases. Eligibility criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating LBP in which the primary treatment was based on Pilates exercise compared with no exercise, or non-specific exercise.

RESULTS

The search returned 1566 records of which 36 articles were included in the systematic review and 19 in the meta-analysis. Twenty-two studies compared the effects of Pilates exercise vs no exercise and 13 studies examined the effects of Pilates exercise vs non-specific exercise. Analysis showed that Pilates had a positive effect on the perception of LBP vs no exercise. A similar trend occurred with non-specific exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

Pilates exercise can decrease LBP compared to no exercise and non-specific exercise. General practitioners should consider Pilates exercise as an effective strategy to manage LBP and counteract the growing health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022308387.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPilates is a good strategy for improving low back pain and is more effective than other exercise programs or no exercise.Pilates is a safe tool to apply to most of the population with low back pain.Pilates is a non-pharmacological strategy useful for counteracting low back pain.

Classification Approaches for Treating Low Back Pain Have Small Effects That Are Not Clinically Meaningful: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik- Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):67-84. Epub 15 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10761.

Existing validated clinical prediction rules for predicting response to physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal conditions have limited clinical value: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review clinical prediction rules (CPRs) that have undergone validation testing for predicting response to physiotherapy-related interventions for musculoskeletal conditions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to September 2020. Search terms included musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, physiotherapy interventions and clinical prediction rules. Controlled studies that validated a prescriptive CPR for physiotherapy treatment response in musculoskeletal conditions were included. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility. Original derivation studies of each CPR were identified. Risk of bias was assessed with the PROBAST tool (derivation studies) and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group criteria (validation studies).

RESULTS

Nine studies aimed to validate seven prescriptive CPRs for treatment response for MSK conditions including back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. Treatments included manipulation, traction and exercise. Seven studies failed to demonstrate an association between CPR prediction and outcome. Methodological quality of derivation studies was poor and for validation studies was good overall.

CONCLUSION

Results do not support the use of any CPRs identified to aid physiotherapy treatment selection for common musculoskeletal conditions, due to methodological shortcomings in the derivation studies and lack of association between CPR and outcome in validation studies.