ABSTRACT 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. METHODS: 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.

Revisões sistemáticas têm como objetivo sumarizar toda a evidência disponível, através de métodos rigorosos, para responder a uma pergunta de pesquisa específica com o mínimo de viés possível. Revisões sistemáticas são amplamente utilizadas na fisioterapia, porém nem todas as revisões possuem boa qualidade. Esse tutorial tem como objetivo guiar os autores do Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy sobre como revisões sistemáticas deveriam ser conduzidas e descritas para que sejam aceitas para publicação. Espera-se que esse tutorial irá auxiliar autores de revisões sistemáticas, assim como editores e revisores de periódicos em como conduzir, descrever, fazer análise crítica e interpretar esse tipo de delineamento de pesquisa.

Systematic reviews aim to summarize all evidence using very rigorous methods in order to address a specific research question with less bias as possible. Systematic reviews are widely used in the field of physical therapy, however not all reviews have good quality. This tutorial aims to guide authors of the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy on how systematic reviews should be conducted and reported in order to be accepted for publication. It is expected that this tutorial will help authors of systematic reviews as well as journal editors and reviewers on how to conduct, report, critically appraise and interpret this type of study design.

BACKGROUND: There are several questionnaires available to assess quality of life in breast cancer, however the choice of the best questionnaire often does not take into account the adequacy of these questionnaires' measurement properties. OBJECTIVE: To test the measurement properties of two generic quality of life questionnaires and one quality of life questionnaire specific for women with breast cancer. METHOD: We assessed 106 women after surgery for breast cancer. The assessment included application of the SF-36, WHOQOL-bref, and FACT-B+4 questionnaires as well as the Global Perceived Effect and Pain Numerical Rating scales. The participants were interviewed on three occasions to investigate internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, construct validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness. RESULTS: Most of the instruments' domains showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha varying from 0.66 to 0.91). Reliability varied from poor to substantial (ICC2,1 between 0.39 and 0.87) and agreement varied from negative to very good. The SF-36 presented doubtful agreement and showed floor and ceiling effects in three domains. The domains of the generic questionnaires presented moderate to good correlation with the FACT-B+4 (Pearson varying from 0.31 to 0.69). The internal responsiveness varied from small to large (ES varying from -0.26 to 0.98) and external responsiveness was found in only some of the instruments' domains. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the measurement properties tested for the WHOQOL-bref and FACT-B+4 were adequate as was their ability to assess quality of life in women with breast cancer. The SF-36 showed inadequacy in agreement and floor and ceiling effects and should not be used in women with breast cancer.

OBJETIVOS: Revisar estudos controlados aleatorizados sobre a eficácia do método Pilates no tratamento da dor lombar crônica não específica. MÉTODO: Buscas foram realizadas nas bases de dados MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, LILACS, CINAHL e CENTRAL em março de 2013. Foram selecionados apenas estudos controlados aleatorizados em adultos com dor lombar crônica não específica, cujo tratamento foi baseado no método Pilates comparado com nenhuma intervenção ou intervenção mínima, outros tipos de intervenção ou exercícios, sem restrição ao idioma de publicação. Os dados referentes à dor e incapacidade foram extraídos de textos, tabelase figuraspara combinação por metanálise. RESULTADOS: Dos 1545 artigos encontrados, oito foram considerados elegíveis e sete foram incluídos na metanálise. Dois estudos compararam o método Pilates com outros exercícios, e quatro estudos compararam com nenhuma intervenção ou intervenção mínima para dor a curto prazo; quatro estudos compararam o método Pilates com intervenção mínima para incapacidade a curto prazo. Na metanálise, houve diferença significante para dor e incapacidade na comparação com nenhuma intervenção ou intervenção mínima (diferença entre médias=1,6 pontos; IC 95% 1,4 a 1,8; diferença entre médias=5,2 pontos; IC 95% 4,3 a 6,1; respectivamente). O método Pilates não foi superior para o desfecho dor com relação a outros exercícios a curto prazo. CONCLUSÃO: Sugere-se que o método Pilates é mais eficaz que intervenção mínima para melhora da dor e incapacidade a curto prazo. O método Pilates não é mais eficaz que outros tipos de exercícios para melhora da dor a curto prazo.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available evidence on the efficacy of the Pilates method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHOD: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, LILACS, CINAHL and CENTRAL in March 2013. Randomized controlled trials that tested the effectiveness of the Pilates method (against a nontreatment group, minimal intervention or other types of interventions) in adults with chronic low back pain were included regardless the language of publication. The outcome data were extracted from the eligible studies and were combined using a meta-analysis approach. RESULTS: The searches identified a total of 1,545 articles. From these, eight trials were considered eligible, and seven trials were combined in the meta-analysis. The comparison groups were as follows: Pilates versus other types of exercises (n=2 trials), and Pilates versus no treatment group or minimal intervention (n=4 trials) for short term pain; Pilates versus minimal intervention for short-term disability (n=4).We determined that Pilates was not better than other types of exercises for reducing pain intensity. However, Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing short-term pain and disability (pain: pooled mean difference=1.6 points; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8; disability: pooled mean difference=5.2 points; 95% CI 4.3 to 6.1). CONCLUSIONS: Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Pilates was not better than other types of exercise for short-term pain reduction.

OBJETIVOS: Avaliar as atitudes e crenças de fisioterapeutas brasileiros sobre a dor lombar crônica e identificar características sociodemográficas que as influenciam. MÉTODOS: Este estudo transversal incluiu 100 fisioterapeutas brasileiros que atendem pacientes com dor lombar crônica em sua rotina clínica. As atitudes e crenças foram avaliadas pela Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) e Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS). Foram construídos modelos de regressão linear multivariada para verificar as possíveis características sociodemográficas que poderiam estar associadas com as atitudes e crenças dos fisioterapeutas. RESULTADOS: Os escores médios dos fatores biomédico e comportamental da PABS.PT foram 27,06 (DP 7,19) e 24,34 (DP 6,31), respectivamente, e o escore médio da HC-PAIRS foi 45,45 (DP 10,45). O escore do PABS.PT Fator biomédico foi associado com gênero e anos de experiência profissional. Já o escore do PABS.PT Fator comportamental não foi associado com nenhuma variável. O escore do HC-PAIRS foi significativamente associado com o número de pacientes com dor lombar atendido por mês. Esses resultados indicam que fisioterapeutas experientes tendem a seguir uma abordagem biomédica no tratamento de pacientes com dor lombar crônica. Além disso, quanto menor a experiência profissional, mais forte é a crença na relação entre dor e incapacidade. CONCLUSÕES: Os fisioterapeutas brasileiros mostram-se incertos acerca dos fatores que envolvem o desenvolvimento e a manutenção da dor lombar crônica e também sobre a relação entre dor e incapacidade nesses pacientes. Isso põe em questão as atitudes e práticas em relação ao manejo dos pacientes com dor lombar crônica no Brasil.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the attitudes and beliefs of Brazilian physical therapists about chronic low back pain and to identify the sociodemographic characteristics that are more likely to influence these attitudes and beliefs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study with 100 Brazilian physical therapists who routinely work with chronic low back pain patients. The attitudes and beliefs were measured by the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) and the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS). Multivariate linear regression models were built to identify sociodemographic characteristics that could be associated with physical therapists' attitudes and beliefs. RESULTS: Mean scores on the biomedical and biopsychosocial factors of PABS.PT were 27.06 (SD 7.19) and 24.34 (SD 6.31), respectively, and the mean score on HC-PAIRS was 45.45 (SD 10.45). The score on PABS.PTbiomedical was associated with gender and years of professional experience. No variable was associated with the score on PABS.PTbiopsychosocial. The score on HC-PAIRS was significantly associated with the number of back pain patients seen by the physical therapist each month. These results indicate that male and less experienced physical therapists tend to follow a biomedical approach to the treatment of chronic low back pain patients, and that the lower the professional experience the stronger the belief in the relationship between pain and disability. CONCLUSIONS: Brazilian physical therapists are uncertain of the factors involved in the development and maintenance of chronic low back pain and about the relationship between pain and disability in these patients.