In the study, the researchers aim to find the effectiveness of Pilates in reducing chronic pain in people suffering from backache. However, the researchers do not use the primary methodology to confirm their thesis. The researchers report quantitative results of the selected reviews and write the review according to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses’ (PRISMA) guidelines”. The research material for the study was gathered from 10 different scholarly databases using the keywords, ‘Pilates’, ‘low back pain’ and ‘review’.
The researcher question of all the selected reviews was the same – The impact of Pilates on chronic low back pain. The researcher and interpretation of the primary studies was conducted their process in four stages. The researchers compared studies with similar research questions, sifted and chose primary studies, calculated the level of evidence used in the systematic review and finally the quality of the methodology used. There were two additional reviewers to assess the level of evidence and methodological quality using the NHMRC evidence hierarchy and the R-AMSTAR which has been found useful in assessing the methodological quality of the systematic reviews.
The study of the selected 5 reviews revealed conflicting results about the effectiveness of Pilates in reducing chronic low back pain in people (Wells et. all). In their study, the researchers found inconsistency in methodological design and levels of evidence. They concluded that there is lack of evidence to prove the positive relation between Pilates and reduction of chronic back pain in people. The researchers attribute this inconclusive evidence to the scarcity and low quality of methodology used in primary studies. This study fits into the larger domain of theories which assert the importance of Pilates exercises to reduce chronic back pain in people.
This study asserts that the methodology used to conduct such studies may not be of high quality; hence the results may not be authentic. The study challenges all previous studies which use poor methodology to confirm the use of Pilates to cure chronic back pain in people.
The study is related to the domain of healthcare. It challenges the fact that Pilates as a form of exercise may not have a considerable impact on chronic back pain. The results will certainly deter many potential aspirants who have used previous scientific data to consider the use of Pilates as an effective therapy for reducing back pain. Within the healthcare domain, the study, due to its scientific methodology, is highly reputable and authentic due to the stringent methods used for assessing the quality of the selected reviews.
Personally, this study will not deter me from engaging in alternative therapies for physical health. I do not personally practice Pilates, but I am a regular practitioner of Yoga, which is believed to be the base of Pilates. I have not suffered from chronic back pain, but personally know family and friends who have benefitted immensely from practices such as yoga and Pilates. However, if I had not been a regular practitioner of yoga, I would have believed the results of this study and could have been deterred from engaging in an alternate therapy for physical problems such as pain. This study points to the lack of appropriate evidence and low quality methodology used by researchers to confirm the effect of Pilates on chronic back pain.
Works Cited
Wells, Cherie, Kolt Gregory, Marshall Paul, Hill Bridget and Bialocerkowski Andrea. “Effectiveness of Pilates exercise in treating people with chronic low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 13.7 (2013). Web.