| Literature DB >> 36193150 |
Hui Ruan1,2, Wichai Eungpinichpong3, Hua Wu2, Minggui Shen4, Aijiao Zhang4.
Abstract
The efficacy of massage therapy in the treatment of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) remains unclear. This study systematically reviewed the impact of massage therapy on children with ASD according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) declaration guidelines. A literature search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) electronic databases from inception to December 20, 2020, was conducted using the term "autistic/autism" along with one of the following terms, "massages," and "Tui na." The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias Tool. Eight randomized controlled trials examining the impact of massage on children with ASD were included. Interventions combining Qigong massage or Tui na with the control group treatments from once a day to twice a week, for a duration of 15-30 mins, and lasting for six weeks to five months were the main interventions. All reviewed studies reported significant improvement in children with ASD who received massage, especially in the sensory domain, and that massage in combination with control treatment was superior to control treatment alone. However, the overall quality of the available studies is poor with a high degree of heterogeneity. The majority of studies showed a high risk of bias with poor study design, inconsistency in massage protocols, and subjective outcome measures. Assessment bias was a common weakness of these studies. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that massage is effective for ASD. Future studies should include large sample sizes, incorporate double-blind designs, employ appropriate outcome measures, and allow for long observation and follow-up periods. Furthermore, consensus must be reached on standardized treatments and additional therapies in order to provide better quality evidence for the treatment of ASD.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36193150 PMCID: PMC9526643 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5328320
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| Study | Participants | Intervention | Comparator | Outcome measures | Major findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silva et al. (2007) [ |
| EG: ( | CG: ( | (1) Batelle: the cognitive domain screening test, | (1) Compared with CG, significant improvement in the sensory profile score, sensory processing score, sensory modulation score, social skills, and the basic living skills score in EG was observed, and |
|
| |||||
| Silva et al. (2009) [ |
| RCT EG: ( | CG: ( | (1) PDDBI teacher and parent versions, | (1) Compared with CG, significant main intervention effects were found in the ABC and the PDDBI social/communication composite. Significant main intervention effects were found in parent maladaptive behavior composite and PDDBI social/Communication composite |
| Silva et al. (2011) [ |
| RCT | CG: special education program ( | (1) ABC, | Compared with CG, significant intervention effects were found for the PDDBI, the SSC, and the APSI. The main effect was found in the interaction between treatment and severity of sensory and self-regulation impairment on the PDDBI scales |
| Silva et al. (2015) [ |
| RCT | CG: ( | (1) CARS-2edition, | Compared with CG, significant improvement in normalization of receptive language, autistic behavior, total sensory abnormalities, tactile abnormalities, and decreased autism severity was observed. |
|
| |||||
| Liu et al. (2017) [ |
| EG: ( | CG:( | (1) ABC | (1) Compared with CG, significant improvement in the ABC total scores in both groups before and after treatment was observed, and the EG group showed an increased difference in the ABC total scores |
|
| |||||
| Jing et al. (2019) [ |
| RCT | CG: ( | (1) ABC subset self-help | (1) After the intervention, the self-help score in both groups decreased, and EG was significantly better than that of CG |
|
| |||||
| Feng et al. (2020) [ |
| RCT | CG: ( | (1) ABC | After the intervention, the ABC and CARS score in both groups decreased, and EG was significantly better than CG |
|
| |||||
| Wu et al. 2020 [ |
| RCT | CG: ( | (1) Language ability (self-designed questionnaire) | (1) EG language recovery level and language training effect were significantly higher than that of the control group |
Figure 2Risk of bias in included studies.