Bridget Hill

The effectiveness of Pilates exercise in people with chronic low back pain : a systematic review

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of Pilates exercise in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) through a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data Sources A search for RCTs was undertaken using Medical Search Terms and synonyms for “Pilates” and “low back pain” within the maximal date range of 10 databases. Databases included the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Cochrane Library; Medline; Physiotherapy Evidence Database; ProQuest: Health and Medical Complete, Nursing and Allied Health Source, Dissertation and Theses; Scopus; Sport Discus; Web of Science. Study Selection Two independent reviewers were involved in the selection of evidence. To be included, relevant RCTs needed to be published in the English language. From 152 studies, 14 RCTs were included. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers appraised the methodological quality of RCTs using the McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies. The author(s), year of publication, and details regarding participants, Pilates exercise, comparison treatments, and outcome measures, and findings, were then extracted. Data Synthesis The methodological quality of RCTs ranged from “poor” to “excellent”. A meta-analysis of RCTs was not undertaken due to the heterogeneity of RCTs. Pilates exercise provided statistically significant improvements in pain and functional ability compared to usual care and physical activity between 4 and 15 weeks, but not at 24 weeks. There were no consistent statistically significant differences in improvements in pain and functional ability with Pilates exercise, massage therapy, or other forms of exercise at any time period. Conclusions Pilates exercise offers greater improvements in pain and functional ability compared to usual care and physical activity in the short term. Pilates exercise offers equivalent improvements to massage therapy and other forms of exercise. Future research should explore optimal Pilates exercise designs, and whether some people with CLBP may benefit from Pilates exercise more than others.

Effectiveness of Pilates exercise in treating people with chronic low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BackgroundSystematic reviews provide clinical practice recommendations that are based on evaluation of primary evidence. When systematic reviews with the same aims have different conclusions, it is difficult to ascertain which review reported the most credible and robust findings.MethodsThis study examined five systematic reviews that have investigated the effectiveness of Pilates exercise in people with chronic low back pain. A four-stage process was used to interpret findings of the reviews. This process included comparison of research questions, included primary studies, and the level and quality of evidence of systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence and the methodological quality of systematic reviews, using the National Health and Medical Research Council hierarchy of evidence, and the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews respectively. Any disagreements were resolved by a third researcher.ResultsA high level of consensus was achieved between the reviewers. Conflicting findings were reported by the five systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of Pilates in reducing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. Authors of the systematic reviews included primary studies that did not match their questions in relation to treatment or population characteristics. A total of ten primary studies were identified across five systematic reviews. Only two of the primary studies were included in all of the reviews due to different inclusion criteria relating to publication date and status, definition of Pilates, and methodological quality. The level of evidence of reviews was low due to the methodological design of the primary studies. The methodological quality of reviews varied. Those which conducted a meta-analysis obtained higher scores.ConclusionThere is inconclusive evidence that Pilates is effective in reducing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. This is due to the small number and poor methodological quality of primary studies. The Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews provides a useful method of appraising the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Individual item scores, however, should be examined in addition to total scores, so that significant methodological flaws of systematic reviews are not missed, and results are interpreted appropriately. (348 words)

Clinimetric evaluation of questionnaires used to assess activity after traumatic brachial plexus injury in adults: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES To identify upper limb questionnaires used in the brachial plexus injury (BPI) literature to assess activities and to evaluate their clinimetric properties. DATA SOURCES; STUDY SELECTION; DATA EXTRACTION This systematic review was undertaken in 2 stages. In stage 1, 10 electronic databases and 1 Internet journal were searched for quantitative studies (ie, randomized controlled trials, comparative studies, case series, and case studies) that evaluated outcome after BPI, irrespective of language or date of publication, from date of database inception to September 2010. All outcome instruments used were extracted and classified using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework. Questionnaires were identified that apportioned >50% of the total score to the assessment of upper limb activity. In stage 2, 4 electronic databases were searched for papers that evaluated the clinimetric properties of all identified activity questionnaires with respect to peripheral nerve injuries of the upper limb. Two independent reviewers assessed the clinimetric properties of identified questionnaires according to standardized criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS Stage 1 identified 4324 papers, of which 265 met the inclusion criteria. One hundred and three outcome measures were identified, the majority of which assess body function or body structure. Twenty-nine questionnaires assessed upper limb activity. Two questionnaires, the ABILHAND and Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), attributed >50% of the overall score to activity of the upper limb. The DASH had some published evidence of clinimetric properties in individuals with peripheral nerve injuries. Neither had been clinimetrically evaluated for BPI, nor met all quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS Day-to-day activities of the upper limb are infrequently evaluated after BPI. While attempts have been made to measure activity, there is a paucity of clinimetric evidence on activity questionnaires for individuals with BPI. We recommend that a core set of items be developed which evaluate activity, as well a body structure, body function, and participation.

Internal validity of the revised HiMAT for people with neurological conditions

Objective: The High-level Mobility Assessment Tool (HiMAT) was developed to measure high-level mobility limitations following traumatic brain injury. The aim of this study was to investigate if the revised HiMAT is valid for use with adults with neurological conditions other than traumatic brain injury. Design: Cross-sectional study. Subjects: Ninety-five participants with neurological conditions. Methods: HiMAT score sheets were retrieved from the central medical files of people who had attended a major rehabilitation facility for a neurological condition from January 2006 to October 2007. Additional HiMAT score sheets were submitted by therapists who participated in the HiMAT User’s Group. Rasch analysis (RUMM2030 software) was used to determine the overall fit of the model, individual item fit and differential item functioning. Results: Rasch analysis supported the internal validity of the revised eight-item HiMAT for individuals with neurological conditions. It showed good overall fit (P = 0.74), no misfitting items and excellent internal consistency (Person Separation Index = 0.91). The HiMAT is unidimensional with no evidence of response dependency and no differential item functioning for age or sex. Conclusion: Further development of the revised HiMAT is required to investigate other aspects of validity, reliability and responsiveness in different neurological populations. However, the results support the internal validity of the revised HiMAT when used for people with neurological conditions who are able to walk without gait aids.

Evaluation of Internal Construct Validity and Unidimensionality of the Brachial Assessment Tool, A Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Brachial Plexus Injury

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the internal construct validity and dimensionality of a new patient-reported outcome measure for people with traumatic brachial plexus injury (BPI) based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health definition of activity. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. SETTING Outpatient clinics. PARTICIPANTS Adults (age range, 18-82y) with a traumatic BPI (N=106). INTERVENTIONS There were 106 people with BPI who completed a 51-item 5-response questionnaire. Responses were analyzed in 4 phases (missing responses, item correlations, exploratory factor analysis, and Rasch analysis) to evaluate the properties of fit to the Rasch model, threshold response, local dependency, dimensionality, differential item functioning, and targeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Not applicable, as this study addresses the development of an outcome measure. RESULTS Six items were deleted for missing responses, and 10 were deleted for high interitem correlations >.81. The remaining 35 items, while demonstrating fit to the Rasch model, showed evidence of local dependency and multidimensionality. Items were divided into 3 subscales: dressing and grooming (8 items), arm and hand (17 items), and no hand (6 items). All 3 subscales demonstrated fit to the model with no local dependency, minimal disordered thresholds, no unidimensionality or differential item functioning for age, time postinjury, or self-selected dominance. Subscales were combined into 3 subtests and demonstrated fit to the model, no misfit, and unidimensionality, allowing calculation of a summary score. CONCLUSIONS This preliminary analysis supports the internal construct validity of the Brachial Assessment Tool, a unidimensional targeted 4-response patient-reported outcome measure designed to solely assess activity after traumatic BPI regardless of level of injury, age at recruitment, premorbid limb dominance, and time postinjury. Further examination is required to determine test-retest reliability and responsiveness.

DO EXISTING PATIENT-REPORT ACTIVITY OUTCOME MEASURES ACCURATELY REFLECT DAY-TO-DAY ARM USE FOLLOWING ADULT TRAUMATIC BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURY?

OBJECTIVE To identify the range of activities limited following adult traumatic brachial plexus injury and triangulate these with existing patient-reported outcome measures identified from the literature. DESIGN A qualitative cross-sectional design. SUBJECTS Adults with traumatic brachial plexus injury and expert clinicians. METHODS Using an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework, participants identified day-to-day activities that are limited following traumatic brachial plexus injury. Two independent reviewers classified all reported activities into the Comprehensive ICF Core Set of Hand Conditions (CCS-HC) activity domains. Reported activities were triangulated with patient-reported outcome measures identified from the brachial plexus injury literature. RESULTS Fifty-one participants (21 adults with brachial plexus injury, 30 expert clinicians) generated a total of 522 items. The inter-rater reliability for classification to CCS-HC domains was excellent (k = 0.94, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.92-0.96). Activities reported by patients and clinicians represented all 29 CCS-CH activity domains. Five activities (2%) could not be classified to any ICF domain. Fifteen CCS-HC activity domains were represented in the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and ABILHAND, 2 measures currently used in the brachial plexus injury literature. CONCLUSION Adults with a brachial plexus injury report a range of activities that are limited following injury, and are under-represented in currently used patient-reported outcome measures. The activities reported in this study could be used to inform the development of a new brachial plexus injury targeted questionnaire.

Assessment of the internal construct validity of the revised High-Level Mobility Assessment Tool for traumatic orthopaedic injuries

Objective: To determine whether the revised High-Level Mobility Assessment Tool (HiMAT) was valid for measuring mobility for people with multi-trauma orthopaedic lower limb injuries. Design: Cross-sectional study. Subjects: Participants with lower limb multi-trauma orthopaedic injuries. Methods: One complete revised HiMAT was obtained for 106 people within 12 weeks of being allowed to fully weight bear. Rasch analysis was used to assess the overall fit of the model for individuals and items, differential item functioning, local dependency, targeting of items and dimensionality. Results: The mean revised HiMAT score was 10.5 (SD = 6.8) with a range of 5–30. Rasch analysis of revised HiMAT showed adequate overall fit to the model (P = 0.29) with no misfitting items (fit residual SD = 0.69) or persons (fit residual SD = 0.62). The scale showed good internal consistency (Person Separation Index = 0.91). One item (hopping) demonstrated disordered thresholds, however this item had good fit to the model in all other aspects. The revised HiMAT was unidimensional, and no differential item functioning was detected for gender or age. The revised HiMAT was well targeted for this group with a range of items across all ability levels. Conclusion: The results of this study support the internal construct validity of the revised HiMAT as a well-targeted, unidimensional measure of high-level mobility with no ceiling or floor effect for males and females recovering from multi-trauma orthopaedic lower limb injuries.

Letter on “Validation of the Brief International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Core Set for Hand Conditions”

We read with great interest the recently published paper on content validation of a Brief Hand Core Set by Kus et al (2012). 1 This is one of 3 papers describing the development and validation of a Hand Core Set. 1-3 We commend the authors on the large body of work undertaken to develop and validate both a Comprehensive and Brief Hand Core Set that will provide a framework around which clinicians may base their assessment and treatment.

Comments on "Compensation by the uninjured arm after brachial plexus injury"

We read the recent article “Compensation by the Uninjured Arm After Brachial Plexus Injury” published in Hand with great interest.5 Brachial plexus injury (BPI), like a number of other devastating unilateral upper limb injuries, will result in compensation with the unaffected limb based on the level and severity of the initial injury. The authors of this article have clearly demonstrated that the Disability of the Shoulder, Arm and Hand (DASH)3 summed score reflects both disability of the injured limb and compensation with the uninjured limb following BPI. We concur that measures of overall physical function including compensation are important as in the real world people will use techniques that are the quickest and easiest to perform. We know, for example, unilateral upper limb amputees report similarly low DASH disability scores to people with Dupuytren contracture and finger amputation, as presumably they become very skilled at using compensatory techniques.1,7 However, the results of this study seem to indicate that when completing the DASH, people can differentiate between tasks performed by the affected or unaffected limb for both unilateral and bilateral activities based purely on how the question is worded. By measuring actual day-to-day use of the affected limb following BPI, rather than the degree of compensation, we may be able to investigate the true benefit of what are often long-term and expensive treatment modalities.

Clinimetric properties of lower limb neurological impairment tests for children and young people with a neurological condition: A systematic review

Background Clinicians and researchers require sound neurological tests to measure changes in neurological impairments necessary for clinical decision-making. Little evidence-based guidance exists for selecting and interpreting an appropriate, paediatric-specific lower limb neurological test aimed at the impairment level. Objective To determine the clinimetric evidence underpinning neurological impairment tests currently used in paediatric rehabilitation to evaluate muscle strength, tactile sensitivity, and deep tendon reflexes of the lower limb in children and young people with a neurological condition. Methods Thirteen databases were systematically searched in two phases, from the date of database inception to 16 February 2017. Lower limb neurological impairment tests were first identified which evaluated muscle strength, tactile sensitivity or deep tendon reflexes in children or young people under 18 years of age with a neurological condition. Papers containing clinimetric evidence of these tests were then identified. The methodological quality of each paper was critically appraised using standardised tools and clinimetric evidence synthesised for each test. Results Thirteen papers were identified, which provided clinimetric evidence on six neurological tests. Muscle strength tests had the greatest volume of clinimetric evidence, however this evidence focused on reliability. Studies were variable in quality with inconsistent results. Clinimetric evidence for tactile sensitivity impairment tests was conflicting and difficult to extrapolate. No clinimetric evidence was found for impairment tests of deep tendon reflexes. Conclusions Limited high-quality clinimetric evidence exists for lower limb neurological impairment tests in children and young people with a neurological condition. Results of currently used neurological tests, therefore, should be interpreted with caution. Robust clinimetric evidence on these tests is required for clinicians and researchers to effectively select and evaluate rehabilitation interventions.