OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the effectiveness of therapeutic massage, one of the most popular complementary medical treatments for neck pain. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate whether therapeutic massage is more beneficial than a self-care book for patients with chronic neck pain. METHODS: Sixty-four such patients were randomized to receive up to 10 massages over 10 weeks or a self-care book. Follow-up telephone interviews after 4, 10, and 26 weeks assessed outcomes including dysfunction and symptoms. Log-binomial regression was used to assess whether there were differences in the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful improvements in dysfunction and symptoms (ie, >5-point improvement on the Neck Disability Index; >30% improvement from baseline on the symptom bothersomeness scale) at each time point. RESULTS: At 10 weeks, more participants randomized to massage experienced clinically significant improvement on the Neck Disability Index [39% vs. 14% of book group; relative risk (RR)=2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-7.5] and on the symptom bothersomeness scale (55% vs. 25% of book group; RR=2.2; 95% CI, 1.04-4.2). After 26 weeks, massage group members tended to be more likely to report improved function (RR=1.8; 95% CI, 0.97-3.5), but not symptom bothersomeness (RR=1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.0). Mean differences between groups were strongest at 4 weeks and not evident by 26 weeks. No serious adverse experiences were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that massage is safe and may have clinical benefits for treating chronic neck pain at least in the short term. A larger trial is warranted to confirm these results.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the effectiveness of therapeutic massage, one of the most popular complementary medical treatments for neck pain. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate whether therapeutic massage is more beneficial than a self-care book for patients with chronic neck pain. METHODS: Sixty-four such patients were randomized to receive up to 10 massages over 10 weeks or a self-care book. Follow-up telephone interviews after 4, 10, and 26 weeks assessed outcomes including dysfunction and symptoms. Log-binomial regression was used to assess whether there were differences in the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful improvements in dysfunction and symptoms (ie, >5-point improvement on the Neck Disability Index; >30% improvement from baseline on the symptom bothersomeness scale) at each time point. RESULTS: At 10 weeks, more participants randomized to massage experienced clinically significant improvement on the Neck Disability Index [39% vs. 14% of book group; relative risk (RR)=2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-7.5] and on the symptom bothersomeness scale (55% vs. 25% of book group; RR=2.2; 95% CI, 1.04-4.2). After 26 weeks, massage group members tended to be more likely to report improved function (RR=1.8; 95% CI, 0.97-3.5), but not symptom bothersomeness (RR=1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.0). Mean differences between groups were strongest at 4 weeks and not evident by 26 weeks. No serious adverse experiences were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that massage is safe and may have clinical benefits for treating chronic neck pain at least in the short term. A larger trial is warranted to confirm these results.
Authors: Daniel C Cherkin; Richard A Deyo; Karen J Sherman; L Gary Hart; Janet H Street; Andrea Hrbek; Roger B Davis; Elaine Cramer; Bruce Milliman; Jennifer Booker; Robert Mootz; James Barassi; Janet R Kahn; Ted J Kaptchuk; David M Eisenberg Journal: J Am Board Fam Pract Date: 2002 Nov-Dec
Authors: Ian D Coulter; Eric L Hurwitz; Alan H Adams; Barbara J Genovese; Ron Hays; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jan Lucas Hoving; Bart W Koes; Henrica C W de Vet; Danielle A W M van der Windt; Willem J J Assendelft; Henk van Mameren; Walter L J M Devillé; Jan J M Pool; Rob J P M Scholten; Lex M Bouter Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Eric L Hurwitz; Hal Morgenstern; Philip Harber; Gerald F Kominski; Fei Yu; Alan H Adams Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Andrea D Furlan; Fatemeh Yazdi; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Anita Gross; Maurits Van Tulder; Lina Santaguida; Joel Gagnier; Carlo Ammendolia; Trish Dryden; Steve Doucette; Becky Skidmore; Raymond Daniel; Thomas Ostermann; Sophia Tsouros Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Per Kjaer; Alice Kongsted; Jan Hartvigsen; Alexander Isenberg-Jørgensen; Berit Schiøttz-Christensen; Bolette Søborg; Charlotte Krog; Christian Martin Møller; Christine Marie Bækø Halling; Henrik Hein Lauridsen; Inge Ris Hansen; Jesper Nørregaard; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Lars Valentin Hansen; Marie Jakobsen; Martin Bach Jensen; Martin Melbye; Peter Duel; Steffan W Christensen; Tina Myung Povlsen Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Karen J Sherman; Andrea J Cook; Robert D Wellman; Rene J Hawkes; Janet R Kahn; Richard A Deyo; Daniel C Cherkin Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Pierre Côté; Jessica J Wong; Deborah Sutton; Heather M Shearer; Silvano Mior; Kristi Randhawa; Arthur Ameis; Linda J Carroll; Margareta Nordin; Hainan Yu; Gail M Lindsay; Danielle Southerst; Sharanya Varatharajan; Craig Jacobs; Maja Stupar; Anne Taylor-Vaisey; Gabrielle van der Velde; Douglas P Gross; Robert J Brison; Mike Paulden; Carlo Ammendolia; J David Cassidy; Patrick Loisel; Shawn Marshall; Richard N Bohay; John Stapleton; Michel Lacerte; Murray Krahn; Roger Salhany Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.134