Suppr超能文献

比较普拉提方法与不运动或腰部稳定对于慢性下腰痛患者的疼痛和功能:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Comparing the Pilates method with no exercise or lumbar stabilization for pain and functionality in patients with chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

MSc Programme in Physical Education, Universidade Estadual de Londrina-UEM, Londrina, Brazil.

出版信息

Clin Rehabil. 2012 Jan;26(1):10-20. doi: 10.1177/0269215511411113. Epub 2011 Aug 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review with meta-analyses that evaluates the effectiveness of the Pilates method on the pain and functionality outcome in adults with non-specific chronic low back pain.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed in the following databases: Medline, Embase, AMED, Cinahl, Lilacs, Scielo, SportDiscus, ProQuest, Web of Science, PEDro, Academic Search Premier and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1950 to 2011; the following keywords were used: 'Pilates', 'Pilates-based', 'back exercises', 'exercise therapy', 'low back pain', 'back pain' and 'backache'.

REVIEW METHODS

The inclusion criteria were studies that assessed the effects of the Pilates method on patients with chronic low back pain.

RESULTS

Five studies met the inclusion criteria. The total number of patients was 71 in the Pilates group and 68 in the control group. Pilates exercise did not improve functionality (standardized mean difference (SMD = -1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.80, 0.11; P = 0.07) or pain between Pilates and control groups (SMD = -1.99; 95% CI -4.35, 0.37; P = 0.10). Pilates and lumbar stabilization exercises presented no significant difference in functionality (mean difference (MD) = -0.31; 95% CI -1.02, 0.40; P = 0.39) or pain (MD = -0.31; 95% CI -1.02, 0.40; P = 0.39).

CONCLUSION

The Pilates method did not improve functionality and pain in patients who have low back pain when compared with control and lumbar stabilization exercise groups.

摘要

目的

系统评价普拉提方法对非特异性慢性下腰痛成人疼痛和功能结局的有效性。

资料来源

检索了 Medline、Embase、AMED、Cinahl、Lilacs、Scielo、SportDiscus、ProQuest、Web of Science、PEDro、Academic Search Premier 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(1950 年至 2011 年)等数据库。使用了以下关键词:“Pilates”、“Pilates-based”、“back exercises”、“exercise therapy”、“low back pain”、“back pain”和“backache”。

方法

纳入标准为评估普拉提方法对慢性下腰痛患者影响的研究。

结果

五项研究符合纳入标准。普拉提组共 71 例,对照组共 68 例。普拉提运动并未改善功能(标准化均数差(SMD)=-1.34;95%置信区间(CI)-2.80,0.11;P=0.07)或疼痛(SMD=-1.99;95% CI -4.35,0.37;P=0.10)。普拉提与腰椎稳定运动在功能(均数差(MD)=-0.31;95% CI -1.02,0.40;P=0.39)或疼痛(MD=-0.31;95% CI -1.02,0.40;P=0.39)方面无显著差异。

结论

与对照组和腰椎稳定运动组相比,普拉提方法并未改善下腰痛患者的功能和疼痛。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验