Introduction: Feldenkrais method (FM) has been applied on a large number of people as an educational method to create awareness of themselves and of their own body postures. Despite several existing FM studies, there has not yet been a review of FM in the context of musculoskeletal disorders. Aim: This review aimed at determining the effect, type of exercises, duration and the outcome measure utilized in assessing the FM among individuals with neck and low back pain (LBP). Material and methods: Four databases were searched for eligible studies, which were published in the years 1999-2015. Two authors individually assessed selected studies. From a total of 165 articles, 3 articles were selected and another 1 article from other resources with a total of 4 articles. Results and discussion: The number of participants in all of the four included studies were 65.5 AE 30.1 (mean AE SD). The quality of the studies that was assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Databases (PEDro) scale revealed the score of at least 5/10. Evidence exists that FM may be used for treating musculoskeletal disorders. However, the studies were not enough to make a decision because of different selections of FM lessons, duration and outcome measures. The review also determined type of exercises and outcome utilized in assessing the benefit of FM. Conclusions: Overall, judging from the increasing number of articles in recent years related to FM, this review reports sufficient evidence that FM is increasingly being used in the management of neck pain and LBP.

The objective of this review was to summarize the concept of clinical significance and associated methods focusing on the area of rehabilitation to provide a resource to rehabilitation researchers and clinicians. Studies were searched on electronic databases from inception until July 28, 2020, with no date or language limits. Manual searches as well as Scopus forward citation for relevant references were performed. Narrative synthesis of study results was performed. Definitions of the concepts related to clinical significance, ways of calculating, and interpreting each method were provided using rehabilitation examples. An explanation of methods to evaluate clinical significance (distribution, anchor, and opinion-based methods) and their advantages and disadvantages were also provided. Considering the limitations of statistical significance in assuring meaningfulness of results, clinical interpretation of research outcomes and the report of clinical significance in intervention trials should be a priority in rehabilitation research. When possible, the use of multiple methods (distribution, anchor, and opinion based) is recommended. Thus, clinical researchers are encouraged to present results in a manner that allow the rehabilitation professionals to easily interpret and implement those results in their clinical practice.