Literature DB >> 12221356

Massage for low-back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.

Andrea D Furlan1, Lucie Brosseau, Marta Imamura, Emma Irvin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. Proponents of massage therapy claim it can minimize pain and disability and speed return-to-normal function.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of massage therapy for nonspecific LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, and dissertation abstracts through May 2001 with no language restrictions. References in the included studies and in reviews of the literature were screened. Contact with content experts and massage associations was also made. SELECTION CRITERIA: The studies had to be randomized or quasirandomized trials investigating the use of any type of massage (using the hands or a mechanical device) as a treatment for nonspecific LBP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers blinded to authors, journals, and institutions selected the studies, assessed the methodologic quality using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group, and extracted the data using standardized forms. The studies were analyzed in a qualitative way because of heterogeneity of population, massage technique, comparison groups, timing, and type of outcome measured.
RESULTS: Nine publications reporting on eight randomized trials were included. Three had low and five had high methodologic quality scores. One study was published in German, and the rest, in English. Massage was compared with an inert treatment (sham laser) in one study that showed that massage was superior, especially if given in combination with exercises and education. In the other seven studies, massage was compared with different active treatments. They showed that massage was inferior to manipulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; massage was equal to corsets and exercises; and massage was superior to relaxation therapy, acupuncture, and self-care education. The beneficial effects of massage in patients with chronic LBP lasted at least 1 year after the end of the treatment. One study comparing two different techniques of massage concluded in favor of acupuncture massage over classic (Swedish) massage.
CONCLUSIONS: Massage might be beneficial for patients with subacute and chronic nonspecific LBP, especially when combined with exercises and education. The evidence suggests that acupuncture massage is more effective than classic massage, but this needs confirmation. More studies are needed to confirm these conclusions, to assess the effect of massage on return-to-work, and to measure longer term effects to determine cost-effectiveness of massage as an intervention for LBP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12221356     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200209010-00017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  49 in total

Review 1.  Chiropractic in the United States: trends and issues.

Authors:  Richard A Cooper; Heather J McKee
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Changes in Physiotherapy Utilization in One Workforce: Implications for Accessibility among Canadian Working-Age Adults.

Authors:  Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Donald C Cole; Hyunmi Lee; Dorcas E Beaton; Carol Kennedy; Peter Subrata
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2011-02

3.  Effectiveness of participatory training for prevention of musculoskeletal disorders: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Wenzhou Yu; Ignatius T S Yu; Xiaorong Wang; Zhimin Li; Sabrina Wan; Hong Qiu; Hui Lin; Shaohua Xie; Trevor Sun
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2012-04-29       Impact factor: 3.015

4.  A preliminary study of the effects of repeated massage on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal and immune function in healthy individuals: a study of mechanisms of action and dosage.

Authors:  Mark H Rapaport; Pamela Schettler; Catherine Bresee
Journal:  J Altern Complement Med       Date:  2012-07-09       Impact factor: 2.579

5.  [Physiotherapy strategies in osteoporosis--recommendations for daily practice].

Authors:  C Uhlemann; U Lange
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.372

6.  [Rehabilitation following chronic nonspecific low back pain].

Authors:  B Arnold; M Pfingsten
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.107

7.  The role of massage in sports performance and rehabilitation: current evidence and future direction.

Authors:  Jason Brummitt
Journal:  N Am J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2008-02

8.  Physiotherapy and low back pain in the injured worker: an examination of current practice during the subacute phase of healing.

Authors:  Katherine Harman; Anne Fenety; Alison Hoens; James Crouse; Bev Padfield
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 1.037

9.  Prediction of pain outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of dose-response of spinal manipulation for the care of chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Darcy Vavrek; Mitchell Haas; Moni Blazej Neradilek; Nayak Polissar
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Dose response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mitchell Haas; Adele Spegman; David Peterson; Mikel Aickin; Darcy Vavrek
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.166

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.