Comparison Between Pilates And Home-exercises On Health-related Outcomes In Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) is a major cause of disability and absenteeism. Pilates is commonly adopted in the treatment of CNLBP, though the evidence is controversial. Low-cost interventions such as home-exercises are prominent and considered effective to improve disability. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of Pilates and home-exercises on disability and utility (health states). METHOD: Randomized controlled trial with blind assessor. Thirty-one participants with CNLBP for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned to the Pilates (PT; n=16) or Home-Exercise (HE; n=15) groups. Allocation was concealed. The intervention lasted 6 weeks (two times/week), and 4-months follow-up. The PT was composed by fifty-minutes sessions (seven to ten exercises; two sets of 8 to 12 repetitions). The HE was composed by prescribed postural, muscle stretching and strengthening exercises (booklet, instructions to perform 2 times/week, weekly monitored by text message). Disability was measured by the Quebec Back Pain Questionnaire. The score ranges from no disability (0) to worst disability (100). Health states were measured by the EQ-5D-3L (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression; final utility score ranging from 0 to 1). A linear mixed-model was used to analyze the global effect over time and separate effects at baseline, post-intervention and follow-up. Significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between PT vs HE (global effects). Both groups showed a significant improvement only for disability (post-intervention and follow-up, compared to baseline). CONCLUSION: Both PT and HE were effective and improved the disability of individuals with CNLBP. However, the utility was not influenced by the interventions.Table: Effects of PT (Pilates) and HE (Home Exercises)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".