Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Furlan AD 2002 Not stated | Randomised or Quasi randomised studies investigating the use of any massage (hands or mechanical device) as a treatment for non-specific back pain. Extensive search along Cochrane guidelines. | Systematic review and meta-analysis | Number of papers found | 9 publications included in study | Only one of the trials had an effective non-intervention (sham) control group. All studies included in the paper had participants with back pain lasting more than 6 weeks, often much longer making the results difficult to extrapolate to the acute setting. |
Quality of papers (according to Cochrane back pain study group criteria) | 5 had high quality scores. 3 had low quality scores. | ||||
Massage vs. sham Laser | One study. Massage better than sham therapy at long and short term function, short term pain, but not on quality of pain. Only 51 patients in trial. | ||||
Massage vs. spinal manipulation | 4 studies. 3 showed manipulation better than massage in early stages. Limited evidence to suggest that at 3 weeks little difference in outcomes. | ||||
Massage vs. electrical stimulation | 3 studies. No difference found. | ||||
Massage vs. Corset | 2 studies. No differences found | ||||
Massage vs. exercise, | 1 study. Massage better at short term function. No difference at long term. No differene in pain intensity, ROM, pain quality at short or long term. | ||||
Massage vs relaxation therapy | 1 study. No significant difference. | ||||
Massage vs. acupuncture | 1 study. Massage better in terms of function at 10 and function and symptoms at 52 weeks. | ||||
Massage vs. self care education | 1 study. Massage better at 10 weeks (SMD -2.79 CI -3.22 to -2.36) and 52 weeks (-1.49 (-1.84 to -1.15) for pain intensity and symptom botherness.Better for function at 10 weeks SMD -1.8 (CI -4.31 to -3.29) but not at 52 weeks SMD 0.57 (0.26 to 0.88) | ||||
Massage as component of combined therapy | 1 study. Massage more effective if combined with an exercise program. | ||||
Cherkin DC. 2003 USA | A review of systematic reviews of RCTs published since 1995 evaluating massage, acupuncture, spinal manipulationfor non-specific back pain. The authors also looked for any papers puiblished since the publication of any systematic reviews. | Narrative review of systematic reviews and subsequent relevant controlled trials. | Papers found | 2 systematic review. 3 subsequent controlled trials. | Search strategy limited to time after 1995 |
Quality of included studies | Not explicit. | ||||
Effectiveness of massage therapy | Massage appears to have some beneficial effect that may last up to 52 weeks. Recent higher quality studies suggest greater benefit to massage. | ||||
Ernst E 2004 England | Papers were sought if they were either chiropractic or massage therapy systematic reviews. Data sources from electronic databases, references and authors personal files. | Review article of previously published systematic reviews. | Number of papers found | 6 papers. Only 2 related to massage therapy | Both of the massage papers included in the review were written by the author of this review! No mention of the widely known Cochrane review published 2 years earlier. Inclusion criteria for studies not explicit. No explicit quality score for studies. |
Quality of studies | Not explicit | ||||
Systematic reviews of low back pain and massage | 1 study that included 6 primary studies. Benefit of massage unproven. (this review was also written by Ernst) |