Pilates-Based Therapeutic Exercise: Effect on Subjects With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain and Functional Disability: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial, prestest-posttest design, with a 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of a therapeutic exercise approach in a population with chronic low back pain (LBP). BACKGROUND: Therapeutic approaches developed from the Pilates method are becoming increasingly popular; however, there have been no reports on their efficacy. METHODS AND MEASURES: Thirty-nine physically active subjects between 20 and 55 years old with chronic LBP were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. The specific-exercise-training group participated in a 4-week program consisting of training on specialized (Pilates) exercise equipment, while the control group received the usual care, defined as consultation with a physician and other specialists and healthcare professionals, as necessary. Treatment sessions were designed to train the activation of specific muscles thought to stabilize the lumbar-pelvic region. Functional disability outcomes were measured with The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ/RMDQ-HK) and average pain intensity using a 101-point numerical rating scale. RESULTS: There was a significantly lower level of functional disability (P = .023) and average pain intensity (P = .002) in the specific-exercise-training group than in the control group following the treatment intervention period. The posttest adjusted mean in functional disability level in the specific-exercise-training group was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.7) RMQ/RMDQ-HK points compared to a posttest adjusted mean in the control group of 3.2 (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.0) RMQ/RMDQ-HK points. The posttest adjusted mean in pain intensity in the specific-exercise-training group was 18.3 (95% CI, 11.8 to 24.8), as compared to 33.9 (95% CI, 26.9 to 41.0) in the control group. Improved disability scores in the specific-exercise-training group were maintained for up to 12 months following treatment intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The individuals in the specific-exercise-training group reported a significant decrease in LBP and disability, which was maintained over a 12-month follow-up period. Treatment with a modified Pilates-based approach was more efficacious than usual care in a population with chronic, unresolved LBP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".