Search

Background: Access to full-text articles is an essential element of evidence-based practice., Objective: Estimate the percentage of articles in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) that have free full-text access and compare free access between PEDro and PubMed. Secondary objectives for access via PEDro: determine if publication year and geographic location impact on free access; determine if adding a link to a portable document format (PDF) locator website would improve free access; and evaluate the association between article characteristics and free access., Methods: This observational study used a random sample of 200 articles published in 2000-2019 and indexed in PEDro. Data collectors in Australia, Brazil, Nepal, and Spain attempted to access free full text for each article via PEDro. One data collector attempted to access free full text via PubMed. One data collector attempted to access full text via a PDF locator (http://www.pdfsearchengine.net/). The percentage (95% confidence interval [CI]) of articles with free full-text access from PEDro, PubMed, and the PDF locator website were calculated. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between free full-text access and article characteristics., Results: Free full text could be accessed via PEDro for 51% of the articles (95% CI: 44, 58). PEDro had 4% higher free access than PubMed (95% CI: 1, 7). Access via PEDro did not vary systematically with time, geographic location, or article characteristics. Access improved by 9% (95% CI: 6, 14) by adding a PDF locator website., Conclusions: PEDro is a good source of free full-text articles for physical therapists and other rehabilitation professionals. Evidence resources, professional organisations, employers, researchers, and research agencies could all help to increase access to free full text., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Two of the authors (AMM, MRE) sit on the PEDro Steering Committee., (Copyright © 2022 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinicians commonly try to use mechanism-based knowledge to make sense of the complexity and uncertainty of chronic pain treatments to create a rationale for their clinical decision-making. Although this seems intuitive, there are some problems with this approach., Discussion: The widespread use of mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice can be a source of confusion for clinicians, especially when complex interventions with different proposed mechanisms of action are equally effective. Although the available mechanistic evidence is still of very poor quality, in choosing from various treatment options for people with chronic pain, an approach that correctly incorporates mechanistic reasoning might aid clinical thinking and practice., Conclusion: By explaining that not all evidence of mechanism is the same and by making a proposal to start using mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice properly, we hope to help clinicians to incorporate mechanistic reasoning to prioritize and start choosing what may best work for whom., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Question: What are the effects of specific types of exercise treatments on pain intensity and functional limitation outcomes for adults with chronic low back pain?, Design: Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials., Participants: Adults with non-specific low back pain for ≥ 12 weeks., Intervention: Exercise treatments prescribed or planned by a health professional that involved conducting specific activities, postures and/or movements with a goal to improve low back pain outcomes., Outcome Measures: Pain intensity (eg, visual analogue scale or numerical rating scale) and back-related functional limitations (eg, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index), each standardised to range from 0 to 100., Results: This review included 217 randomised controlled trials with 20,969 participants and 507 treatment groups. Most exercise types were more effective than minimal treatment for pain and functional limitation outcomes. Network meta-analysis results were compatible with moderate to clinically important treatment effects for Pilates, McKenzie therapy, and functional restoration (pain only) and flexibility exercises (function only) compared with minimal treatment, other effective treatments and other exercise types. The estimated mean differences for these exercise types compared with minimal treatment ranged from -15 to -19 for pain and from -10 to -12 for functional limitation., Conclusion: This review found evidence that Pilates, McKenzie therapy and functional restoration were more effective than other types of exercise treatment for reducing pain intensity and functional limitations. Nevertheless, people with chronic low back pain should be encouraged to perform the exercise that they enjoy to promote adherence., Registration: DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009790., (Copyright © 2021 Australian Physiotherapy Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of web-based pain education programs without clinical support in patients with musculoskeletal pain., Methods: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to February 2020. Included studies were randomized clinical trials in which people with musculoskeletal pain were allocated to an experimental group that received web-based pain education as a standalone approach. Three review authors performed data extraction. The PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability., Results: Six trials with a total of 1664 participants were included. There is moderate-quality evidence with a small effect size that web-based pain education programs, as a standalone approach, are better than minimal intervention (no intervention or booklets) for pain intensity (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.23; 95% CI = -0.43 to -0.04) in the short term and intermediate term (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.42 to -0.10). Regarding disability, there is low-quality evidence that web-based pain education programs are better than minimal intervention (SMD = -0.36; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.07) in the short term. Web-based pain education added to usual care was no better than usual care alone in the intermediate or long term for primary outcomes., Conclusions: Web-based pain education for adults with musculoskeletal pain, as a standalone approach, was better than minimal intervention for pain intensity and disability in the short term, and for pain intensity in the intermediate term. Web-based pain education added to usual care did not provide additional benefits for primary outcomes in the intermediate or long term., Impact: Web-based pain education as a standalone intervention provided small improvements in pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Poorly resourced settings and overburdened health systems should consider this delivery method in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain., Lay Summary: If you have chronic musculoskeletal pain, your physical therapist might recommend web-based pain education as treatment to help you reduce pain intensity and disability., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cerebral palsy (CP) is one of the main causes of disability in childhood. Virtual reality (VR) has been used as a treatment option in this population, however its effectiveness is unclear., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of VR in patients with CP., Methods: We conducted electronic searches in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, PEDro, AMED, PsycoINFO, and LILACS databases and trial site registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. We included randomized controlled trials that tested the use of VR alone or in combination with other interventions compared to more conventional rehabilitation or usual care in individuals with CP. The primary outcomes were upper and lower limb function, postural control, and balance. The secondary outcomes included global motor function, perception, cognition and spatial functions, motivation, motor learning, and adverse events. Two independent reviewers extracted and assessed included articles for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We use a meta-analysis with random effect model whenever possible. We analyzed the quality of evidence using theGRADE approach., Results: We included 38 trials (pooled n = 1233 participants) in this review. There is very low quality of evidence that VR plus conventional rehabilitation is better than conventional rehabilitation for upper limb function. There is also very low quality evidence that VR alone is no better than conventional rehabilitation for upper and lower limb function. No adverse events were observed among the 10 trials that provided information on this outcome., Conclusion: At present we have very limited to limited confidence in effect estimation for utilization of VR in this population. Future studies may change our confidence in results and effect estimates., Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD 42018102759., (Copyright © 2020 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Question: What are the effects of dry cupping on pain intensity, physical function, functional mobility, trunk range of motion, perceived overall effect, quality of life, psychological symptoms and medication use in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain?, Design: Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and blinding of participants and assessors., Participants: Ninety participants with chronic non-specific low back pain., Interventions: The experimental group (n = 45) received dry cupping therapy, with cups bilaterally positioned parallel to the L1 to L5 vertebrae. The control group (n = 45) received sham cupping therapy. The interventions were applied once a week for 8 weeks., Outcome Measures: Participants were assessed before and after the first treatment session, and after 4 and 8 weeks of intervention. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured with the numerical pain scale at rest, during fast walking and during trunk flexion. Secondary outcomes were physical function, functional mobility, trunk range of motion, perceived overall effect, quality of life, psychological symptoms and medication use., Results: On a 0-to-10 scale, the between-group difference in pain severity at rest was negligible: MD 0.0 (95% CI -0.9 to 1.0) immediately after the first treatment, 0.4 (95% CI -0.5 to 1.5) at 4 weeks and 0.6 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.6) at 8 weeks. Similar negligible effects were observed on pain severity during fast walking or trunk flexion. Negligible effects were also found on physical function, functional mobility and perceived overall effect, where mean estimates and their confidence intervals all excluded worthwhile effects. No worthwhile benefits could be confirmed for any of the remaining secondary outcomes., Conclusion: Dry cupping therapy was not superior to sham cupping for improving pain, physical function, mobility, quality of life, psychological symptoms or medication use in people with non-specific chronic low back pain., Protocol Registration Number: NCT03909672., (Copyright © 2021 Australian Physiotherapy Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the effect of walking promotion strategies on physical activity, pain, and function in people with musculoskeletal disorders., Design: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis., Literature Search: We performed the searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) from inception to August 2019., Study Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions that promote walking in people with musculoskeletal disorders., Data Synthesis: We used the PEDro scale for assessing risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence. We expressed pooled effects for between-group differences as mean differences or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, or as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals, using random-effects meta-analyses., Results: Twelve eligible trials (n = 1456 participants) were identified. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence of no difference in physical activity levels for walking promotion interventions when compared to minimal interventions, and a significant effect favoring walking promotion when compared with usual care in the short term. There was moderate-quality evidence that walking promotion was modestly effective for reducing pain and improving function compared with minimal intervention and usual care. There was no difference in pain and function for walking promotion compared to supervised exercise. Walking promotion was not associated with different rates of adverse events compared to control conditions., Conclusion: Strategies to promote walking did not increase physical activity in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Walking promotion was associated with small improvements in pain and function compared to minimal intervention and usual care. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(11):597-606. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9666 .

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is one of the main causes of years lived with disability and generates the highest cost of health care among chronic pain conditions. Internet-based treatments have been shown to be an alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, in addition to reducing barriers such as travel, high demands on the public health system, lack of time, lack of insurance coverage for private care, and high costs for long-term treatment. The aim of this clinical trial is to develop and test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of, an internet-based self-management program based on pain education and exercise for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain., Methods: This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation comparing the Internet-based pain education and exercise intervention with a control group that will receive an online booklet. One hundred and sixty patients will be recruited from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Follow-ups will be conducted in post-treatment, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The conduct of the study, as well as the evaluations and follow-ups will be carried out entirely remotely, through online platforms and telephone calls. The primary outcome will be pain intensity at post-treatment (8 weeks) measured using the 11-item Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will be biopsychosocial factors presents in the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Costs due to chronic musculoskeletal pain will be also measured, and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will performed., Discussion: Our hypothesis is that internet-based pain education and exercise will be better than an online booklet in reducing pain and improving biopsychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, we believe that there will be good acceptance of patients for the internet-based intervention and that internet-based intervention will be more cost effective than the online booklet., Trial Registration: The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04274439 , registered 18 February 2020).

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain represents an enormous burden in society. Best-practice care for chronic musculoskeletal pain suggests adoption of self-management strategies. Telehealth interventions (e.g., videoconferencing) are a promising approach to promote self-management and have the potential to overcome geographical barriers between patient and care providers. Understanding patient perspectives will inform and identify practical challenges towards applying the self-management strategies delivered via telehealth to everyday lives. The aim of this study is to synthesize the perceptions of individuals with musculoskeletal pain with regards to enablers and barriers to engaging in telehealth interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain self-management., Methods: A systematic review of qualitative studies will be performed based on searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, and PsycINFO databases. Screening of identified titles will be conducted by two independent investigators. Data extraction will retrieve detailed qualitative information from selected articles. The critical appraisal skills program (CASP) checklist will be used for critical appraisal of included studies, and the level of confidence in the findings will be assessed using the confidence in the evidence from reviews of qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual). A thematic synthesis approach will be used to derive analytical themes., Discussion: This review will systematically identify, synthesize, and present enablers and barriers reported by people with musculoskeletal pain to engage in telehealth interventions. The review will provide information required to support the design and improvement of telehealth services., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019136148.

Objective: To evaluate the overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews of exercise therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain using the AMSTAR 2 tool., Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PEDro and CINAHL was searched up to February 2017. Two independent reviewers selected systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials that investigated exercise therapy in patients with low back pain. AMSTAR 2 assessment was performed by pairs of reviewers, and the overall confidence in the results of the systematic reviews were rated as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' and 'Critically low'. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the characteristics of included systematic reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews achieving each item from the AMSTAR 2 and the overall confidence in the results were tabulated., Results: The search identified 38 systematic reviews. Most of the reviews included a median of 10 clinical trials and total sample size of 813 participants per review. Five of 38 (13%) reviews were Cochrane reviews, and 8 (21%) systematic reviews had a protocol published or registered prospectively. The overall confidence in the results of 28 reviews (74%) was rated as 'Critically low', 6 (16%) as 'Low', 1 (2%) as Moderate, while 3 of 38 reviews (8%) were rated as 'High'., Conclusion: The results demonstrate very low confidence in the results of most systematic reviews of exercise in chronic non-specific low back pain. Clinicians are more likely to deliver the most efficacious interventions to patients by critically appraising systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 before making their decisions., (Copyright © 2019 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Smoking is a risk factor for chronic pain conditions. Epidemiological evidence suggests that smoking cessation may be an important treatment target in people with chronic pain. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in people with chronic pain., Methods: We systematically searched for clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with chronic pain, compared with any control comparator. Primary outcomes were pain and physical function. Secondary outcomes were smoking status, quality of life, psychological and cognitive function, and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria and the quality of evidence with GRADE., Results: Searches retrieved 3845 records and identified two trials for inclusion (total n = 99 participants). There was low-quality evidence of no effect of smoking cessation programs on pain and very low-quality evidence of no effect on function at short-term follow-up. There was conflicting evidence on the effect of smoking cessation interventions for changing the smoking status and number of cigarettes consumed per day. There was no effect on depression and anxiety., Conclusion: Current evidence does not indicate clinically important effects of smoking cessation interventions in people with chronic pain. There is a need for high-quality trials in this area., Implications: Our review highlights an important evidence gap. We found only two studies investigating smoking cessation programs for chronic pain conditions providing very low- to low-quality evidence., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests The BMJ has judged that there are no disqualifying financial ties to commercial companies. The authors declare the following other interests: none. Further details of The BMJ policy on financial interests are here: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-competing-interests

Background: Low back pain is a very prevalent condition in the population and cupping therapy has been presented as a frequently used non-pharmacological treatment in this population. However, there is a lack of well-designed studies that evaluate the effects of this technique. This protocol describes a placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind study that aims to evaluate the effect of dry cupping therapy on pain, physical function, trunk range of motion, quality of life and psychological symptoms in individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain., Methods and Analysis: Ninety individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain, aged from 18 to 59 years, will be randomised into two groups: intervention group, which will be submitted to dry cupping therapy application with two suctions; and placebo group which will undergo placebo dry cupping therapy. Both applications will occur bilaterally in parallel to the vertebrae from L1 to L5. The application will be performed once a week for 8 weeks. The volunteers will be evaluated before the treatment (T0), immediately after the first intervention (T1), after 4 weeks of intervention (T4) and after 8 weeks of intervention (T8). The primary outcome will be pain intensity, and secondary outcomes will be physical function, lumbar range of motion, patient expectation, overall perception of effect, quality of life and psychological factors., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of FACISA/UFRN (number: 3639814). The results of the study will be disseminated to participants through social networks and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and scientific meetings., Trial Registration Number: NCT03909672., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Low back pain (LBP) is extremely common and causes an enormous burden on the society. This perspective article aims to provide an evidence-based summary in the field of LBP. More specifically, we aimed to present epidemiological data on cost, diagnosis, prognosis, prevention and interventions for patients with LBP. It is critical that both clinicians and policymakers follow best practices by using high-value care for patients with LBP. In addition, nonevidence-based procedures must be immediately abandoned. These actions are likely to reduce societal costs and will improve the quality of life of these patients.

Background: Shoulder pain is common among patients with musculoskeletal pain and the prevalence of patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) is high. Despite the high prevalence, there is a lack of an extensive evaluation of the proprioception acuity in patients with SAPS. Knowledge of the proprioceptive deficit would assist clinicians in the proper treatment and may offer an alternative explanation for the mechanisms underlying SAPS, which are poorly understood., Objective: To compare the proprioceptive function of the shoulder in patients with SAPS and matched controls., Study Design: Matched case-control study., Setting: Physical Functional Rehabilitation Service of an outpatient clinic., Participants: A total of 32 consecutive patients with SAPS who sought physical therapy for shoulder pain and 32 healthy participants (control group) matched for age, sex, and handedness., Interventions: All participants completed a questionnaire containing sociodemographic information, pain intensity and characteristics, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale, and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index., Main Outcome Measurements: The proprioceptive assessment was performed through kinesthesia, passive joint position sense (PJPS), and the active joint position sense (AJPS)., Results: The groups showed no statistically significant differences in kinesthesia, PJPS, and AJPS for internal or external rotation. The proprioceptive acuity was not associated with pain intensity or functional disability in patients with SAPS., Conclusions: Participants with SAPS did not present proprioceptive deficits in a pain-free motion of medial and lateral rotation when compared to their matched controls. The proprioceptive deficit may not be involved with the mechanisms underlying SAPS and seems not to interfere with the clinical outcomes of patients with SAPS., Level of Evidence: Level III., (© 2019 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.)

Introduction: Reporting confidence intervals in scientific articles is important and relevant for evidence-based practice. Clinicians should understand confidence intervals in order to determine if they can realistically expect results similar to those presented in research studies when they implement the scientific evidence in clinical practice. The aims of this masterclass are: (1) to discuss confidence intervals around effect estimates; (2) to understand confidence intervals estimation (frequentist and Bayesian approaches); and (3) to interpret such uncertainty measures., Content: Confidence intervals are measures of uncertainty around effect estimates. Interpretation of the frequentist 95% confidence interval: we can be 95% confident that the true (unknown) estimate would lie within the lower and upper limits of the interval, based on hypothesized repeats of the experiment. Many researchers and health professionals oversimplify the interpretation of the frequentist 95% confidence interval by dichotomizing it in statistically significant or non-statistically significant, hampering a proper discussion on the values, the width (precision) and the practical implications of such interval. Interpretation of the Bayesian 95% confidence interval (which is known as credible interval): there is a 95% probability that the true (unknown) estimate would lie within the interval, given the evidence provided by the observed data., Conclusions: The use and reporting of confidence intervals should be encouraged in all scientific articles. Clinicians should consider using the interpretation, relevance and applicability of confidence intervals in real-world decision-making. Training and education may enhance knowledge and skills related to estimating, understanding and interpreting uncertainty measures, reducing the barriers for their use under either frequentist or Bayesian approaches., (Copyright © 2019 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate if allocation concealment and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis influence the treatment effects of physical therapy interventions in low back pain (LBP) trials., Data Sources: We searched on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and CINAHL up to February 2017., Study Selection: We included LBP trials that compared physical therapy interventions to placebo or no intervention or minimal intervention with pain or disability outcomes., Data Extraction: Information about allocation concealment and ITT analysis was extracted from PEDro and pain and disability outcomes converted to a 0-100 scale. A meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of these methodological features of interest on treatment effects. Other covariates included in the meta-regression were sample size and sequence generation., Data Synthesis: We identified 128 eligible trials (pooled N=20,555 participants). A total of 44.5% of the trials achieved allocation concealment, while 32% performed ITT analysis. Meta regression analyses showed no influence of allocation concealment on treatment effects for pain (regression coefficient 0.009; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.91 to 2.91) and disability (regression coefficient 1.13; 95% CI -1.35 to 3.62), and no influence of ITT analysis for pain (regression coefficient 1.38; 95% CI -1.73 to 4.50) or disability (regression coefficient 1.27; 95% CI -1.39 to 3.64). For the other covariates, there was also no clinically significant influence on the treatment effects., Conclusion: There is no influence of allocation concealment or ITT analysis on treatment effects of physical therapy interventions for pain and disability in LBP trials., (Copyright © 2019 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Randomised clinical trials to date investigating the efficacy of bisphosphonates in knee osteoarthritis (OA) have found divergent results, with a recent meta-analysis finding no superiority of these drugs over placebo. Whether particular patient subgroups are more likely to benefit from this therapy than others is still unclear. We aim to investigate the effects of bisphosphonates compared with a control group (placebo, no treatment, another active treatment) on clinical and structural outcomes in specific knee OA subpopulations with possible distinct rates of subchondral bone turnover., Methods and Analysis: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Sciences and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception to February 2018. Randomised clinical trials will be eligible if they reported at least one potential treatment effect modifier at baseline: gender, menopausal status, age, body mass index, radiographic stage, knee pain severity, presence of bone marrow lesions, levels of biochemical markers of bone turnover (serum and/or urinary) and systemic bone mineral density status. Authors of original trials will be contacted to obtain individual patient data from each study. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The primary outcomes will include pain and radiographic joint space width loss. Studies using other MRI-based assessment of disease progression will also be eligible. Outcomes will be grouped into short-term (≤3 months), intermediate-term (>3 months; ≤12 months) and long-term (>12 months). Regression models will be used, adding an interaction term for each subgroup of interest to determine possible subgroup effects. There was no source of funding for this study., Ethics and Dissemination: Dissemination of our findings is planned to occur through conference presentations, publication in peer-reviewed journals and social media. No formal ethics approval is generally required as no new data collection will be undertaken., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018093327., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Professor David Hunter reports personal fees from consulting fees from Merck Serono, Flexion and Tissuegene, outside the submitted work. Prof. Bierma-Zeinstra reports grants from the European Union, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Dutch Arthritis Foundation, CZ, Nuts Ohra, Stichting Coolsingel, personal fees from Infirst Healthcare and from Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is a self-report measure of 15 items. Previous studies have used the LSIQ as a measure of clinical instability; however, a comprehensive evaluation of its clinimetric properties has not been conducted., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the LSIQ in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP)., Methods: In this clinical measurement study, the authors included patients with nonspecific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Australia. Rasch analysis was conducted to assess item hierarchy, targeting, unidimensionality, person fit, internal consistency, and differential item functioning. The researchers assessed test-retest reliability of total scores and individual item scores, as well as convergent and divergent validity., Results: A total of 107 participants with LBP (60 men and 47 women) were recruited. The results were variable. The LSIQ appeared to constitute a unidimensional measure, targeted the sample well, and showed adequate test-retest reliability. However, the scale had poor internal consistency, did not appear to function as an interval-level measure, and had unclear construct validity. Although no items appeared to be redundant, several items were biased by factors other than the proposed construct of the measure., Conclusion: The LSIQ does not seem to be ready to be implemented in clinical practice and may require theoretical reconsideration. Although the LSIQ provided satisfactory estimates for some clinimetric features, the authors do not consider the instrument to be useful as an interval-level measure but rather as an index. Future studies are needed to investigate whether the LSIQ could measure clinical instability or some other construct. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(12):915-922. Epub 22 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7866.

Objective: The aim of this study was to construct and evaluate a summary score of reporting completeness based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR)., Study Design and Setting: We included 200 reports published in 2013 randomly selected from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. We summed the scores for the 12 items for the intervention and control groups for each trial to create a summary score from 0 to 24. Rasch analysis was used to investigate the item hierarchy, category function and reliability of the TIDieR checklist and determine the extent to which the summary score can be considered an interval-level measure., Results: The data fit the Rasch model suggesting the summary score is able to assess the completeness of reporting. The items appeared to target the study sample well (average report measure was 0.48 [0.87] compared to the average item measure of 0.0 [1.82]), and progressed in a logical manner, suggesting the summary score can be used as a single variable. The low internal consistency (0.62) suggests the summary score may only be able to discriminate between the least and most detailed reports., Conclusions: Our results support the use of the TIDieR summary score; however, we encourage the replication of our study in an independent data set., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Aims: To investigate the use of an enriched study design on the estimates of treatment effect in analgesic trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain., Methods: Database searches were conducted from 2004 to 2014. We included randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating pain medications for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The estimates of treatment effect on pain and adverse events were compared between enriched and nonenriched designs. Metaregression was used to assess the association between the effect size estimate and the study design controlling for analgesic dose and methodological quality., Results: We included 108 trials, of which 99 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 44 171). There were no overall differences in effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched designs for pain intensity. There was a significant difference for a reduction in any adverse events favouring enriched designs for opioids, but not for other analgesics or the outcome serious adverse events. There was an association between effect size and methodological quality, with failure to blind the outcome assessor and failure to use intention-to-treat analysis being associated with larger effect sizes., Conclusions: There is no evidence that the use of an enriched study design changes the treatment effect size estimate for pain. There is some evidence that clinical trials that employ enriched designs report a reduced risk of adverse events in trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain, but it is unclear whether enriched designs influence estimates of serious adverse events. Features of trial design and study quality were associated with treatment effect estimates., (© 2017 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Introduction: Meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of methodological characteristics, such as allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis have been performed in a large number of healthcare areas. However, there are no studies investigating these characteristics in physical therapy interventions for patients with low back pain. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of allocation concealment and the use of intention-to-treat analysis on estimates of treatment effects of physical therapy interventions in low back pain clinical trials., Methods and Analysis: Searches on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and CINAHL databases will be performed. We will search for systematic reviews that include a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that compared physical therapy interventions in patients with low back pain with placebo or no intervention, and have pain intensity or disability as the primary outcomes. Information about selection (allocation concealment) and attrition bias (intention-to-treat analysis) will be extracted from the PEDro database for each included trial. Information about bibliographic data, study characteristics, participants' characteristics and study results will be extracted. A random-effects model will be used to provide separate estimates of treatment effects for trials with and without allocation concealment and with and without intention-to-treat analysis (eg, four estimates). A meta-regression will be performed to measure the association between methodological features and treatment effects from each trial. The dependent variable will be the treatment effect (the mean between-group differences) for the primary outcomes (pain or disability), while the independent variables will be the methodological features of interest (allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis). Other covariates will include sample size and sequence generation., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical approval will be required for this study. The study findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences., Registration Number: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42016052347)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of JOSPT as follows: "Subgrouping Patients With Low Back Pain" with Authors' Response J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(4):295. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0203.

Clinicians and clinical researchers share a common goal of achieving better outcomes for patients with low back pain (LBP). For that, randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews are the most reliable study designs to determine the effects of interventions. Subgroup analyses in these research designs have been used to examine treatment-effect modification across subgroups defined by patient characteristics. In this Viewpoint, the authors present supporting and opposing arguments for the subgrouping approach in nonspecific LBP, considering the progress made so far in the LBP field and the relevant literature in adjacent fields. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(2):44-48. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0602.

Purpose: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is one of the most recommended questionnaires to assess disability. Some previous studies support the assumption that the RMDQ is a unidimensional measure; however, recent studies have suggested that this measure has more than one domain and should be considered as a multidimensional scale. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the structure of the RMDQ in a large sample of patients with low back pain using two different statistical approaches., Methods: We analysed existing datasets from previous clinical studies. We assessed unidimensionality using Rasch analysis of item fit statistics and through principle component analysis of residuals. We also performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the hypothesis of a 3-factor solution., Results: We included data from 2826 patients with non-specific low back pain. The average age of all participants included was 46.4 years, and half of the participants were women (50.1%). The Rasch analysis model showed that the RMDQ is unidimensional, with only two items demonstrating slight excessive positive outfit. Results from the CFA suggested poor fit to the data of a 3-factor solution., Conclusions: We recommend that the RMDQ should still be used as a unidimensional scale for measuring disability as the only construct.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Objectives: To assess the credibility of subgroup claims in back pain randomized controlled trials., Study Design and Setting: A sample of reports of back pain trials from 2000 to 2015 that provided a subgroup claim were included (n=38). Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and credibility of subgroup claims as well as the strength of the author's claim. The credibility of subgroup claims was assessed using a 10-criteria tool, and strength of the subgroup claims was assessed based on seven criteria to categorize claims into a reasonably strong claim of a definitive subgroup effect or a more cautious claim of a possible effect., Results: A total of 91 claims of a subgroup effect were reported in the 38 included trials, of which 28 were considered strong claims of a definitive effect, and 63 were cautious claims of a possible effect. None of the subgroup claims met all 10 credibility criteria, and only 24% (22 claims) satisfied at least five criteria. The only criteria satisfied by more than 50% of the claims were if the subgroup variable was a characteristic measured at baseline, and whether the test of interaction was significant. All other criteria were satisfied by less than 30% of the claims. There was no association between the credibility of subgroup claims and the journal impact factor, risk of bias, sample size, or year of publication., Conclusion: The credibility of subgroup claims in back pain trials is usually low, irrespective of the strength of the authors' claim., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: A systematic review., Objective: The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of motor control exercise (MCE) in patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP)., Summary of Background Data: MCE is a common form of exercise used for managing LBP. MCE focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and coordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles., Methods: We conducted electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases, and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved any disagreement. We included randomized controlled trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment, or as a supplement to other interventions in patients with nonspecific LBP. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group 12-item criteria. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference and 95% confidence interval. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Results: We included 32 trials (n = 2628). Most included trials had a low risk of bias. For acute LBP, low to moderate quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy or other forms of exercise. There is very low-quality evidence that the addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvements. For recurrence at one year, there is very low-quality evidence that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence. For chronic LBP, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for reducing pain compared with minimal intervention. There is low to high-quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises or manual therapy. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPAs) or telerehabilitation for pain and disability., Conclusion: MCE is probably more effective than a minimal intervention for reducing pain, but probably does not have an important effect on disability, in patients with chronic LBP. There was no clinically important difference between MCE and other forms of exercises or manual therapy for acute and chronic LBP., Level of Evidence: 1.

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 randomized 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 randomization) (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 randomization), 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: Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP., Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP., Search Methods: We conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov)., Selection Criteria: We only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important., Main Results: Our searches retrieved 4449 records, of which three trials were included in the review (n = 1825 participants), and two trials were included in the meta-analysis. For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. For chronic LBP, there is very low-quality evidence (based on a trial that has been retracted) for no effect of paracetamol (1 g single intravenous dose) on immediate pain reduction. Finally, no trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute LBP., Authors' Conclusions: We found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.

Background: Incomplete descriptions of interventions are a common problem in reports of randomised controlled trials. To date no study has evaluated the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions., Objectives: To evaluate the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions in a random sample of reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)., Data Sources: A random sample of 200 reports of RCTs from the PEDro database., Study Selection or Eligibility Criteria: We included full text papers, written in English, and reporting trials with two arms. We included trials evaluating any type of physiotherapy interventions and subdisciplines., Data Extraction and Data Synthesis: The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and completeness of intervention description using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. The proportion and 95% confidence interval were calculated for intervention and control groups, and used to present the relationship between completeness and methodological quality, and subdisciplines., Results: Completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy RCTs was poor. For intervention groups, 46 (23%) trials did not describe at least half of the items. Reporting was worse for control groups, 149 (75%) trials described less than half of the items. There was no clear difference in the completeness across subdisciplines or methodological quality., Limitations: Our sample were restricted to trials published in English in 2013., Conclusion and Implications of Key Findings: Descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy RCTs are typically incomplete. Authors and journals should aim for more complete descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy trials., (Copyright © 2016 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status., Selection Criteria: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation)., Main Results: We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone., Authors' Conclusions: We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

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 Chi(2) test and the I(2) 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.

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.