Jenny Lena Kanitz1, Marcus Reif2, Carolina Rihs3, Ingrid Krause4, Georg Seifert5. 1. Department of Paediatric Oncology and Haematology, Task Force Integrative Medicine in Paediatric Oncology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: jenny-lena.kanitz@charite.de. 2. Institute for Clinical Research (IKF Berlin), Germany. Electronic address: Marcus.Reif@ikf-berlin.de. 3. Department of Paediatric Oncology and Haematology, Task Force Integrative Medicine in Paediatric Oncology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: carolina@glueckstueck.ch. 4. Department of Paediatric Oncology and Haematology, Task Force Integrative Medicine in Paediatric Oncology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: i-krause@web.de. 5. Department of Paediatric Oncology and Haematology, Task Force Integrative Medicine in Paediatric Oncology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: georg.seifert@charite.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Rhythmical massage (RM) has evolved from classical massage and is based on the principles of Anthroposophic medicine. The goal of this randomized, single-blinded study was to assess the efficacy of a single RM intervention with either aroma oil (RA) or a neutral oil (RM) compared to a sham massage (SM) on several dimensions of well-being and salivary cortisol in a laboratory setting. METHODS:118 healthy adults (mean age: 25.2 years; SD: 4.7) were randomized to one of three groups (RM, RA or SM). After baseline measurements, all subjects were exposed to an experimental stressful situation (Trier Social Stress Test, TSST), before receiving a single massage intervention of about 60 min including a 20-minute rest period. Well-being as the main outcome parameter was assessed by standardized questionnaires (MDBF, Bf-S, B-L) and visual analogue scales (VAS) prior to the beginning of the massage and subsequently. Salivary cortisol and heart rate variability (data are shown elsewhere) were also measured. RESULTS: Participants who received RM or RA showed no statistically significant improvements (MDBF, Bf-S, B-L) compared to the SM group after adjusting for baseline differences observed between the treatment groups. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were found between the RM and RA groups in any of the analyses. Within a follow-up survey all participants from the RA and 82% from the RM group described the intervention as "relaxing" compared with 42% in the SM group. Salivary cortisol did not differ statistically significantly between the three groups over time. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant effect within this trial. This may be due to the methodological complexity of massage research and especially the sham-controlled design with only one single intervention examined. The influence of the setting, and the expectations of and interaction between participant and practitioner seem to play a role that needs to be verified. Therefore the true potential of rhythmical massage intervention still needs to be validated.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Rhythmical massage (RM) has evolved from classical massage and is based on the principles of Anthroposophic medicine. The goal of this randomized, single-blinded study was to assess the efficacy of a single RM intervention with either aroma oil (RA) or a neutral oil (RM) compared to a sham massage (SM) on several dimensions of well-being and salivary cortisol in a laboratory setting. METHODS: 118 healthy adults (mean age: 25.2 years; SD: 4.7) were randomized to one of three groups (RM, RA or SM). After baseline measurements, all subjects were exposed to an experimental stressful situation (Trier Social Stress Test, TSST), before receiving a single massage intervention of about 60 min including a 20-minute rest period. Well-being as the main outcome parameter was assessed by standardized questionnaires (MDBF, Bf-S, B-L) and visual analogue scales (VAS) prior to the beginning of the massage and subsequently. Salivary cortisol and heart rate variability (data are shown elsewhere) were also measured. RESULTS:Participants who received RM or RA showed no statistically significant improvements (MDBF, Bf-S, B-L) compared to the SM group after adjusting for baseline differences observed between the treatment groups. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were found between the RM and RA groups in any of the analyses. Within a follow-up survey all participants from the RA and 82% from the RM group described the intervention as "relaxing" compared with 42% in the SM group. Salivary cortisol did not differ statistically significantly between the three groups over time. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant effect within this trial. This may be due to the methodological complexity of massage research and especially the sham-controlled design with only one single intervention examined. The influence of the setting, and the expectations of and interaction between participant and practitioner seem to play a role that needs to be verified. Therefore the true potential of rhythmical massage intervention still needs to be validated.