Effectiveness of Pilates compared with home-based exercises in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain: Randomised controlled trial.

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of a Pilates exercise program compared with home-based exercises in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain. Design: A randomised controlled trial with a six-month follow-up. Setting: Rehabilitation clinic. Participants: One hundred and forty-five individuals (18–50 years of age) with low back pain for ≥ 12 consecutive weeks were enrolled and randomly allocated to either Pilates (n = 72) or home-based exercise groups (n = 73). Interventions: Method Pilates (Mat Pilates exercises using accessories) versus home-based exercise (postural exercises, muscle stretching and strengthening, and spine stabilisation/mobilisation), twice a week, for 6 weeks. Main measures: Assessments were performed at baseline, post-intervention, and six months follow-up. Outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and health-related quality of life. Results: At post-intervention, the Pilates group had significantly lower pain intensity (mean difference = −1.14; 95% CI −2.05; −0.23), less disability (mean difference = −6.7; 95% CI −11.3; −2.0), and higher health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.102; 95% CI 0.054; 0151) compared to the home-based exercise group. At follow-up, the Pilates group had a significantly higher health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.055; 95% CI 0.003; 0.106) compared with the home-based exercise group but there were no significant differences in pain and disability. A significant overall effect of Pilates compared to home-based exercise was found for disability (mean difference = −4.4; 95% CI −7.6; −1.1), and health-related quality of life (mean difference = 0.049; 95% CI 0.022; 0.076), but not for pain. Conclusion: Although Pilates was significantly superior to home exercise for pain and disability, the differences were not considered clinically relevant. However, Pilates did provide significant and clinically relevant differences in utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]