Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a
School of Physical Education and Sports, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
b
Medicine Sport Center of Cienfuegos, Cuba
Received 27 March 2012; received in revised form 29 July 2012; accepted 17 August 2012
KEYWORDS Summary Objective: The purposes of this study were to systematically review and apply
Pilates; regression analysis to randomised controlled trials [RCTs] that evaluated the effectiveness
Systematic review; of Pilates exercise in improving persistent, non-specific low back pain and functional disability.
Exercise therapy; Methods: Electronic databases were searched from January 1950 to March 2011. Articles were
Complementary eligible for inclusion if they were RCTs comparing Pilates exercise with a placebo treatment
therapy; [PT], minimal intervention [MI] or another physiotherapeutic treatment [APT].
Lumbar spine; Results: Nine trials were included. Pilates was moderately superior to APT (pooled Effect Size
Rehabilitation; [ES] weighted Z 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] Z 0.08 to 1.03) in reducing disability
Meta-regression but not for pain relief. Pilates provided moderate to superior pain relief compared to MI
(pooled ES weighted Z 0.44, 95% CI Z 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 Copyright ª 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. 44th Ave., Number 3720, Cienfuegos, Cuba. Tel.: þ53 43523650.
E-mail address: aladro80@fastmail.es (A.R. Aladro-Gonzalvo).
1360-8592/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright ª 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2012.08.003
126 A.R. Aladro-Gonzalvo et al.
recreation, family and community) and functional disability One reviewer (MMD) screened search results for poten-
[FD] (Asghari and Nicholas, 2001; Woby et al., 2004; Mannion tially eligible studies, and 2 reviewers (MMD, AAG) inde-
et al., 2001). Additionally research has found that perceived pendently reviewed articles for eligibility. A third
pain scores demonstrated a strong correlation with disability independent reviewer (GAV) resolved any disagreement
measures (Lackner et al., 1996; Waddell et al., 1993). about inclusion or exclusion of trials.
Treatment options for LBP can be placed into two cate-
gories, active and passive (Kirkaldy-Willis and Bernard, 1999).
PREVENTION & REHABILITATION e PILATES EXERCISE: META ANALYSIS
Data synthesis and analysis meta-analysis, and dES trivial is the estimate of a trivial ES
(e.g., 0.15) (Hedges and Olkin, 1985).
The data were grouped into two treatment contrasts: (1) Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, version
Pilates-based exercise versus minimal intervention (no 15.0.
intervention, general practitioner care, education), and (2)
Pilates-based exercise versus another physiotherapeutic Results
treatment.
The calculation of the effect size was used as an esti-
Figure 1 Flow chart of systematic review inclusion and exclusion. RCTs Z randomised controlled trials.
Overall the female sample (142 subjects) was twice the certified therapist for Pilates was unreported, except in
size of the male sample (81 subjects). The age of the one trial (Anderson, 2005).
subjects ranged from 30 to 50 y (Table 1). Four trials used co-interventions (e.g., analgesic
Pilates regimes were heterogenic in term of frequency intake, physiotherapy treatment, home exercise pro-
(range Z 1e3 times/wk) and number of sessions gramme) in the experimental designs (Rydeard et al.,
(range Z 6e24). Only in one trial were there 10 consecu- 2006; Gagnon, 2005; MacIntyre, 2006; Gladwell et al.,
tive sessions (Donzelli et al., 2006). The typical session 2006). In one trial (Gladwell et al., 2006), Pilates exer-
length was usually similar between trials, predominantly cise was applied as an additional intervention to the drug
60 min per session, performed on mats (i.e., Pilates mat- treatment (Table 2).
work) and studio equipment (i.e., Pilates studio appa-
ratus). Rydeard et al. (2006), Donzelli et al. (2006) and
MacIntyre (2006) used specific rehabilitation methods (i.e., Pilates versus minimal intervention
Biokinetik Exercise Technique, Pilates CovaTech and STOTT
Pilates respectively) derived from the original Pilates Of the 6 trials (169 subjects) included in this treatment
method and its basic principles (Table 2). The use of contrast, 5 trials (147 subjects) compared Pilates with MI
Pilates-based exercise for persistent low back pain 129
Table 1 (continued )
Article Patient characteristics, sample size, and Outcomes (measure) Article included in
duration of complaint previous reviews
Limba da Patients recruited from waiting list for Pain (VAS) Not included in previous
Fonseca physiotherapeutic treatment reviews
PREVENTION & REHABILITATION e PILATES EXERCISE: META ANALYSIS
Table 2 Details of the interventions and main outcomes in the included randomised controlled trials.
Article Interventions Preintervention Postintervention PEDro scorec
Pilates versus another therapeutic treatment
Anderson 2005 Experimental group: Pilates Pilates: MBI-pain, 33.5 Pilates: MBI-pain, 24.2 6
apparatus. (18.6); ODQ, 16.7 (4.2) (14.7); ODQ, 13.9 (5.7)
Regime: 50 min., 2 time/ Therapeutic massage: MBI- Therapeutic massage: MBI-
wk, 12 sessions. pain, 39.3 (15.6); ODQ, 18.5 pain, 35.0 (18.0); ODQ, 17.9
Table 2 (continued )
Article Interventions Preintervention Postintervention PEDro scorec
Rydeard et al., Experimental group: Pilates Pilates: NRS-101, 23.0 (1.7); Pilates: NRS-101, 18.3 (1.4); 9
2006 matwork and apparatus. RMDQ, 3.1 (2.7) RMDQ, 2.0 (1.3)
Regime: 60 min. 3 times/ Control: NRS-101, 30.4 Control: NRS-101, 33.9
PREVENTION & REHABILITATION e PILATES EXERCISE: META ANALYSIS
wk, 12 sessions, plus home (1.7); RMDQ, 4.2 (3.3) (1.4); RMDQ, 3.2 (1.7)
exercise program.
Regime: 15 min. 6 times/wk
Comparison group: health
usual care, analgesics, PT as
needed and no exercise.
MacIntyre, Experimental group: aSTOTT Pilates: VAS, 5.1 (2.0); Pilates: VAS, 3.4 (2.7); 8
2006 Pilates matwork. RMDQ, 7.0 (3.1) RMDQ, 4.6 (2.3)
Regime: 60 min.1 time/wk, Control: VAS, 4.8 (1.7); Control: VAS, 1.8 (3.1);
12 sessions and normal RMDQ, 7.4 (3.4) RMDQ, 2.2 (3.6)
exercise or sports regimes,
PT as needed; plus home
exercise program
Regime: 10 min. 3 times/
wk, 10 sessions.
Comparison group: normal
exercise or sports regimes
and PT as needed.
Quinn, 2005 Experimental group: Pilates Pilates: ODQ, 25.9 (10.7) Pilates: ODQ, 10.9(10.3) 5
matwork. Control: ODQ, 22.0 (8.7) Control: ODQ, 18.0 (12.4)
Regime: 45e60 min., 2
time/wk, 24 sessions.
Comparison group:
maintenance normal daily
activities and no exercise.
O’Brien et al., Experimental group: Pilates Pilates: VAS, 61.6(6.5); Pilates: VAS, 17.2(7.7); 7
2006 matwork and apparatus. RMDQ, 10.7 (1.9) RMDQ, 1.7 (0.7)
Regime: 60 min., 2 time/ Control: VAS, 48.7 (6.2); Control: VAS, 52.0 (7.3);
wk, 8 sessions RMDQ, 7.0 (1.9) RMDQ, 6.2 (1.5)
Comparison group: no
exercise.
Abbreviation: PT Z Physiotherapeutic treatments.
a
STOTT Pilates is an anatomically-based approach to the original method that emphasizes neutral alignment, core or trunk stability
and peripheral mobility.
b
Pilates CovaTech is a specific rehabilitation method derived from the original Pilates method in Italy and takes the name from the
therapist who invented it.
c
Higher scores indicating better methodological qualities of trials.
for pain relief (Rydeard et al., 2006; MacIntyre, 2006; studies with EStrivial Z 0.15 would have to be present, for
Limba da Fonseca et al., 2009; Gladwell et al., 2006; the results to be threatened.
O’Brien et al., 2006) and 5 trials (155 subjects) for There was no evidence that Pilates exercise was effec-
reducing disability (Rydeard et al., 2006; Quinn, 2005; tive for improving disability (pooled ES weighted Z 0.28,
MacIntyre, 2006; Gladwell et al., 2006; O’Brien et al., 95% CI Z 0.07 to 0.62) (Fig. 2).
2006). The methodological quality of the articles ranged
from 5 to 8 (Table 2). The pooled results of comparing
Pilates exercise with MI showed a statistically significant Pilates versus another physiotherapeutic treatment
difference for pain relief (pooled ES weighted Z 0.44,
95% CI Z 0.09 to 0.80) (Fig. 2). This difference in pain Of the 9 studies included in this review, 4 trials (101
score was moderate according to ES interpretation (i.e., patients) compared Pilates with APT in both variables of
ES 0.2 poor or weak; between 0.3 and 0.7 moderate; and interest (Donzelli et al., 2006; Anderson, 2005; Gagnon,
0.8 high or strong) (Thomas et al., 2005). When esti- 2005; O’Brien et al., 2006). The methodological quality
mating the publication bias for this treatment contrast, 9 of the articles ranged from 3 to 7 (Table 2). There was
Pilates-based exercise for persistent low back pain 133
Figure 3 Forest plot of the results of trials comparing Pilates-based exercises with another physiotherapeutic treatment for LBP
and FD. Values presented are effect size (with correction factor) and 95% confidence interval. The pooled effect sizes were
calculated using a weighting by variance reciprocal.
used of co-intervention in 1 trial (Gagnon, 2005), but, when On the other hand, the test for homogeneity showed
this study was deleted, the effect size unexpectedly there was some source of additional variation that could
increased slightly (i.e., pooled ES weighted Z 0.62, 95% be related to the effect of moderator variables. An
CI Z 0.10 to 1.14) for the disability score. intriguing finding was that the effect sizes did not deviate
This systematic review did not find evidence that substantially from the weighted regression model. This
Pilates was superior to minimal intervention in reducing outcome suggests that the small number of trials
disability, nor superior to another physiotherapy included in the study limits the potential merits of
treatment for pain relief, because the pooled results did a meta-regression approach. It is also possible that
not show statistically significant differences (Figs. 2 several features not coded a priori that could have
and 3). influenced the treatment effectiveness, were linked to
When looking at the quality of the trials included in this psychological impairments (e.g., pain perception, fear-
review, a mean score of 6 can be considered a moderate avoidance behaviour, neurological feedback from the
score because these trials were exercise trials where it is deep muscles of the trunk, low self-efficacy and cata-
impossible to blind the treatment provider and subjects, strophizing), physical impairments (e.g., weakness,
and, therefore, the maximum PEDro score that can be endurance and structural integrity), characteristics of
achieved is 8. Trials that associated Pilates against minimal treatment implementation (e.g., the experience of the
intervention scored >6. However, trials associating Pilates Pilates instructor in the management of the special
against another physiotherapy treatment were of lower characteristic of the subjects, progression), pain coping
methodological quality (mean score Z 5), and according to strategies (e.g., behavioural and cognitive approach,
CBRG (Furlan et al., 2009) potentially presented biased behavioural and cognitive avoidance), environmental and
estimates of treatment effectiveness. The implications social factors.
associated with the poor methodological quality of the The main limitations of this meta-analysis were in the
studies reviewed affecting the observed effects were well- review process (e.g., only a few studies assessing the most
described in previous systematic reviews (Lim et al., 2011; important outcomes of interest) and generalizability (e.g.,
Pereira et al., 2011). limited data for persistent LBP and the review was not able
Pilates-based exercise for persistent low back pain 135
Table 3 Summary of the regression model for sizes effect significantly different of zero.
Particular variables Pilates versus minimal interventions
Pain
R2 F-value P-value k
Age 0.033 0.102 0.771 5
BMI 0.046 0.097 0.785 4
to offer dosage parameters). The authors did not limit the Conclusions
set for the quality assessment score of the RCTs, because it
would restrict the possibility of accomplishing meta- The results of this systematic review suggest that Pilates-
regression. Limitations between studies were the small based therapeutic exercise is moderately superior to minimal
sample sizes, the large variation in intervention protocols intervention for pain relief and confers similar benefits when
(e.g., Pilates regimes: frequency and progression, and compared with pooled scores to another physiotherapeutic
Pilates type: performed on mats as opposed to studio treatment. Although co-interventions with Pilates, might
equipment), the absence of placebo controlled trials, the enhance treatment effectiveness for pain relief; this
short-term follow-up and the absence of assessment of conclusion should be interpreted with caution.
treatment adherence. Pilates is moderately better than another physiother-
When comparing the strengths of this review in relation apeutic treatment in reducing disability, and provides
to other studies, the authors limited the set for study comparable benefits to minimal intervention. The low
design (e.g., RCT), and detected that there is a source of methodological quality of the studies reviewed, and the
additional variation that can affect the independent heterogeneity of the physiotherapy treatment showed
manner the effectiveness of the treatment, and measured estimate bias of the treatment effectiveness for reducing
how many studies were involved in the file drawers disability; thus, it is recommended that Pilates should be
problem. The results found in this systematic review were carefully considered for patients with functional disability
similar to those presented by Lim et al. (2011). In addition, associated to LBP.
this review included 2 new trials (MacIntyre, 2006; Limba The optimal implementation of Pilates exercise at
da Fonseca et al., 2009) that were not included by Lim present is unclear. Future studies should incorporate
et al. (2011), accounting for the addition of 49 subjects. placebo controlled trial, larger sample sizes, intervention
However, the results found in this systematic review were protocols that are comparable, assessment of the several
different to those presented by Pereira et al. (2011). features not coded in this review and longer term follow-up.
Basically, the difference was determined by the inclusion
in this review, of studies with serious methodological
flaws.
In the author’s opinion, future trials could also consider Conflict of interest
the preventive actions of Pilates-based exercise to reduce
episodes of LBP and associated functional disability. None.
136 A.R. Aladro-Gonzalvo et al.
Appendix A. Supplementary material Luo, X., Pietrobon, R., Sun, S.X., et al., 2004. Estimates and
patterns of direct health care expenditures among individuals
with back pain in the United States. Spine 29 (1), 79e86.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
MacIntyre, L., 2006. The effect of Pilates on patients’ chronic low
found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ back pain. A pilot study. Dissertation. University of the Wit-
j.jbmt.2012.08.003. watersrand, Johannesburg, p. 59.
Maher, C.G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R.D., et al., 2003. Reliability
References
PREVENTION & REHABILITATION e PILATES EXERCISE: META ANALYSIS