Efeitos do método Pilates solo comparado ao Pilates equipamento para o tratamento da dor lombar crônica: uma revisão sistemática
Data
2024-11-21
Autores
Silva, Vivian Calegaro 
Orientadores
Macedo, Cristiane Rufino
Tipo
Dissertação de mestrado
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Resumo
Objetivo: Essa revisão sistemática com metanálise avaliou a efetividade do método Pilates solo comparado ao método Pilates equipamento para o tratamento de dor lombar crônica. Métodos: Incluímos ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) que comparam método Pilates solo versus método Pilates equipamento em adultos (acima de 18 anos) com dor lombar crônica. Os desfechos primários avaliados foram intensidade da dor, funcionalidade; já os secundários foram cinesiofobia e eventos adversos. As buscas eletrônicas foram realizadas em outubro de 2024, nas bases de dados PubMed, Embase, Portal Regional BVS – LILACS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PEDro e nas plataformas de registros de ensaios clínicos. Dois revisores, de forma independente, realizaram a seleção dos estudos, coleta e extração dos dados, divergências foram resolvidas por discussão. Avaliação de Risco de Viés foi realizada pela RoB2, a metanálise foi realizada pelo Review Manager 5.4 Software e a certeza da evidência pelo GRADE. Resultados: Um total de 1.562 registros foram obtidos, três ECRs foram incluídos nessa revisão, com um total de 154 participantes avaliados na metanálise. As intervenções foram realizadas por um curto período de tempo que variou de 6 a 8 semanas; com 2 a 3 sessões semanais, e com duração de 50 a 60 minutos. Para a intensidade da dor não houve diferenças significativa entre as intervenções com diferença de média (DM)=0,92; intervalo de confiança (IC) 95%;[-0,36 a -2,20]; heterogeneidade (I2)= 78% e P= 0,03; com baixa certeza da evidência. Da mesma forma, para a funcionalidade não houve diferenças entre as intervenções com DM= -0,05; 95%IC [-2,07 a -1,96]; I2=36% e P=0,21 com moderada certeza da evidência. Para o desfecho cinesiofobia, não houve diferenças entre as intervenções com DM= -0,79; 95%IC [-1,89 a -3,47]; I2=0% e P=0,74; com moderada certeza da evidência. Nenhum evento adverso ocorreu durante as intervenções.
Conclusões: O Pilates solo comparado com o Pilates equipamento apresentam efeitos semelhantes para dor, funcionalidade e cinesiofobia em curto prazo de tempo. Os dois métodos são seguros. No entanto, mais estudos clínicos randomizados são necessários a fim de aumentar o grau de certeza nos resultados.
Objective: This systematic review with metaanalysis evaluated the effectiveness of the mat Pilates method compared to the equipment Pilates method for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Methods: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the mat Pilates method versus the equipment Pilates method in adults (aged 18 and above) with chronic low back pain. The primary outcomes assessed were pain intensity and functionality; secondary outcomes included kinesiophobia and adverse events. Electronic searches were conducted in October 2024 across the databases PubMed, Embase, LILACS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PEDro, and clinical trial registries. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data collection, and extraction, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2, the metaanalysis was conducted with Review Manager 5.4 software, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: A total of 1,562 records were obtained, and three RCTs were included in this review, with a total of 154 participants evaluated in the metaanalysis. The interventions were conducted over a short period, ranging from 6 to 8 weeks, with 2 to 3 sessions per week, each lasting 50 to 60 minutes. For pain intensity, no significant differences were found between the interventions, with a mean difference (MD) of 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.36 to 2.20]; heterogeneity (I²) = 78% and P = 0.03, indicating low certainty of evidence. Similarly, for functionality, no differences were observed between the interventions, with MD = 0.05; 95% CI [2.07 to 1.96]; I² = 36% and P = 0.21, indicating moderate certainty of evidence. For the kinesiophobia outcome, no differences were found between the interventions, with MD = 0.79; 95% CI [1.89 to 3.47]; I² = 0% and P = 0.74, indicating moderate certainty of evidence. No adverse events occurred during the interventions. Conclusions: Mat Pilates compared to equipment Pilates shows similar effects on pain, functionality, and kinesiophobia in the short term. Both methods are safe. However, more randomized clinical trials are needed to increase the certainty of the results.
Objective: This systematic review with metaanalysis evaluated the effectiveness of the mat Pilates method compared to the equipment Pilates method for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Methods: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the mat Pilates method versus the equipment Pilates method in adults (aged 18 and above) with chronic low back pain. The primary outcomes assessed were pain intensity and functionality; secondary outcomes included kinesiophobia and adverse events. Electronic searches were conducted in October 2024 across the databases PubMed, Embase, LILACS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PEDro, and clinical trial registries. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data collection, and extraction, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2, the metaanalysis was conducted with Review Manager 5.4 software, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: A total of 1,562 records were obtained, and three RCTs were included in this review, with a total of 154 participants evaluated in the metaanalysis. The interventions were conducted over a short period, ranging from 6 to 8 weeks, with 2 to 3 sessions per week, each lasting 50 to 60 minutes. For pain intensity, no significant differences were found between the interventions, with a mean difference (MD) of 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.36 to 2.20]; heterogeneity (I²) = 78% and P = 0.03, indicating low certainty of evidence. Similarly, for functionality, no differences were observed between the interventions, with MD = 0.05; 95% CI [2.07 to 1.96]; I² = 36% and P = 0.21, indicating moderate certainty of evidence. For the kinesiophobia outcome, no differences were found between the interventions, with MD = 0.79; 95% CI [1.89 to 3.47]; I² = 0% and P = 0.74, indicating moderate certainty of evidence. No adverse events occurred during the interventions. Conclusions: Mat Pilates compared to equipment Pilates shows similar effects on pain, functionality, and kinesiophobia in the short term. Both methods are safe. However, more randomized clinical trials are needed to increase the certainty of the results.
Descrição
Citação
SILVA, Vivian Calegaro. Efeitos do método Pilates solo comparado ao Pilates equipamento para o tratamento da dor lombar crônica: uma revisão sistemática. 2024. 125 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Saúde Baseada em Evidências) - Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP). São Paulo, 2024.