BACKGROUND: Massage is widely used for neck pain, but its effectiveness remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of massage compared to placebo or sham, no treatment or exercise as an adjuvant to the same co-intervention for acute to chronic persisting neck pain in adults with or without radiculopathy, including whiplash-associated disorders and cervicogenic headache.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, trial registries) to 1 October 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of massage with sham or placebo, no treatment or wait-list, or massage as an adjuvant treatment, in adults with acute, subacute or chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We transformed outcomes to standardise the direction of the effect (a smaller score is better). We used a partially contextualised approach relative to identified thresholds to report the effect size as slight-small, moderate or large-substantive.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies (1994 participants analysed). Selection (82%) and detection bias (94%) were common; multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding to the placebo was effective. Massage was compared with placebo (n = 10) or no treatment (n = 8), or assessed as an adjuvant to the same co-treatment (n = 15). The trials studied adults aged 18 to 70 years, 70% female, with mean pain severity of 51.8 (standard deviation (SD) 14.1) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100). Neck pain was subacute-chronic and classified as non-specific neck pain (85%, including n = 1 whiplash), radiculopathy (6%) or cervicogenic headache (9%). Trials were conducted in outpatient settings in Asia (n = 11), America (n = 5), Africa (n = 1), Europe (n = 12) and the Middle East (n = 4). Trials received research funding (15%) from research institutes. We report the main results for the comparison of massage versus placebo. Low-certainty evidence indicates that massage probably results in little to no difference in pain, function-disability and health-related quality of life when compared against a placebo for subacute-chronic neck pain at up to 12 weeks follow-up. It may slightly improve participant-reported treatment success. Subgroup analysis by dose showed a clinically important difference favouring a high dose (≥ 8 sessions over four weeks for ≥ 30 minutes duration). There is very low-certainty evidence for total adverse events. Data on patient satisfaction and serious adverse events were not available. Pain was a mean of 20.55 points with placebo and improved by 3.43 points with massage (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.16 better to 1.29 worse) on a 0 to 100 scale, where a lower score indicates less pain (8 studies, 403 participants; I2 = 39%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to indirectness; most trials in the placebo comparison used suboptimal massage doses (only single sessions). Selection, performance and detection bias were evident as multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding was effective, respectively. Function-disability was a mean of 30.90 points with placebo and improved by 9.69 points with massage (95% CI 17.57 better to 1.81 better) on the Neck Disability Index 0 to 100, where a lower score indicates better function (2 studies, 68 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (the wide CI represents slight to moderate benefit that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of selection, performance and detection biases. Participant-reported treatment success was a mean of 3.1 points with placebo and improved by 0.80 points with massage (95% CI 1.39 better to 0.21 better) on a Global Improvement 1 to 7 scale, where a lower score indicates very much improved (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (single study with a wide CI that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of performance as well as detection bias. Health-related quality of life was a mean of 43.2 points with placebo and improved by 5.30 points with massage (95% CI 8.24 better to 2.36 better) on the SF-12 (physical) 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates the lowest level of health (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence once for imprecision (a single small study) and risk of performance and detection bias. We are uncertain whether massage results in increased total adverse events, such as treatment soreness, sweating or low blood pressure (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.08 to 11.55; 2 studies, 175 participants; I2 = 77%). We downgraded the evidence to very low-certainty due to unexplained inconsistency, risk of performance and detection bias, and imprecision (the CI was extremely wide and the total number of events was very small, i.e < 200 events).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of massage to the management of neck pain remains uncertain given the predominance of low-certainty evidence in this field. For subacute and chronic neck pain (closest to 12 weeks follow-up), massage may result in a little or no difference in improving pain, function-disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success when compared to a placebo. Inadequate reporting on adverse events precluded analysis. Focused planning for larger, adequately dosed, well-designed trials is needed.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of upper cervical joint mobilization and/or manipulation on reducing pain and improving maximal mouth opening (MMO) and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in adults with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction compared with sham or other intervention.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to June 3, 2022, were searched.
STUDY SELECTION: Eight randomized controlled trials with 437 participants evaluating manual therapy (MT) vs sham and MT vs other intervention were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted information about origin, number of study participants, eligibility criteria, type of intervention, and outcome measures.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Manual therapy was statistically significant in reducing pain compared with sham (mean difference [MD]: -1.93 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.61 to -0.24, P=.03), and other intervention (MD: -1.03 points, 95% CI: -1.73 to -0.33, P=.004), improved MMO compared with sham (MD: 2.11 mm, 95% CI: 0.26 to 3.96, P=.03), and other intervention (MD: 2.25 mm, 95% CI: 1.01 to 3.48, P<.001), but not statistically significant in improving PPT of masseter compared with sham (MD: 0.45 kg/cm2, 95% CI: -0.21 to 1.11, P=.18), and other intervention (MD: 0.42 kg/cm2, 95% CI: -0.19 to 1.03, P=.18), or the PPT of temporalis compared with sham (MD: 0.37 kg/cm2, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.77, P=.07), and other intervention (MD: 0.43 kg/cm2, 95% CI: -0.60 to 1.45, P=.42).
CONCLUSION: There appears to be limited benefit of upper cervical spine MT on TMJ dysfunction, but definitive conclusions cannot be made because of heterogeneity and imprecision of treatment effects.
PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate the effect of exercise rehabilitation as an adjuvant to clinical treatment for myofascial trigger points (MTrPs).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: ESBCO, PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), and Wanfang databases were comprehensively searched from database inception date through July 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing MTrPs treatments that included exercise rehabilitation with a single clinical treatment. Two researchers independently screened articles using inclusion/exclusion criteria, scored methodologic quality, and extracted data including patient demographics, interventions, and outcomes.
RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (N = 734). Results showed short-term (mean difference [MD], -2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.08 to -0.41; Z = 2.40; P = 0.02) and long-term (MD = -0.47; 95% CI: -0.80 to -0.17; Z = 3.05; P = 0.02) adjuvant exercise rehabilitation treatments were superior in reducing musculoskeletal pain intensity to single clinical treatment in controls, but long-term versus short-term effectiveness was not significantly different. The exercise rehabilitation group more effectively increased the range of motion (ROM) (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.04; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.77; Z = 2.84; P = 0.005) and decreased dysfunction (SMD = -0.93; 95% CI: -1.82 to -0.05; Z = 2.06; P = 0.04) than controls; no significant difference was observed in the pressure pain threshold (PPT) between two groups.
CONCLUSION: Exercise rehabilitation as an adjuvant to clinical treatment for MTrPs was moderately effective in relieving pain intensity, increasing ROM, and improving dysfunction versus single clinical intervention. These findings must be validated by larger, higher-quality studies.
(1) Objective: The purpose was to analyze the effectiveness of myofascial therapy on musculoskeletal pain and functionality of the upper extremities in female breast cancer survivors, and to evaluate the changes in range of motion, quality of life, and mood state of these patients. (2) Methods: Systematic searches were performed on the MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Physiotherapy Evidence Databases for articles published until October 2020, in order to identify randomized controlled trials which analyzed the effectiveness of myofascial therapy as compared to a control group, passive treatment, placebo, or another intervention, and allowed co-interventions on female breast cancer survivors. Two reviewers examined the sources individually, calculated the risk of bias and extracted the data (PROSPERO number CRD42020215823). (3) Results: A total of eight RCTs were included. The results suggested that myofascial therapy does not have a greater statistically significant immediate effect on pain intensity (SMD: -0.15; 95% CI -0.48, 0.19), functionality (SMD: -0.17; 95% CI -0.43, 0.09) and range of motion in flexion (SMD: 0.30; 95% CI -0.13, 0.74) than an inactive, passive treatment or another intervention. However, a statistically significant result was observed for the abduction shoulder in favor of the experimental group (SMD: 0.46; 95% CI 0.05, 0.87; p = 0.03). (4) Conclusion: In general, although we found greater overall effects in support of the intervention with myofascial therapy than other control groups/types of interventions, the subgroup analysis revealed inconsistent results supporting myofascial therapy applied to breast cancer survivors.
Persistent head and neck myofascial pain is among the most frequently reported pain complaints featuring major variability in treatment approaches and perception of improvement. Acupuncture is one of the least invasive complimentary modalities that can optimize conventional treatment. The aim of this review was to determine the evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of localized persistent myofascial head and neck pain. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The search was conducted in PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library in addition to manual search. The main outcome measure was the comparison of the mean pain intensity score on VAS between acupuncture and sham-needling/no intervention groups. Safety data and adherence rate were also investigated. Six RCTs were identified with variable risk of bias. All included studies reported reduction in VAS pain intensity scores in the groups receiving acupuncture when compared to sham needling/no intervention. Meta-analysis, using a weighted mean difference as the effect estimate, included only 4 RCTs, revealed a 19.04 point difference in pain intensity between acupuncture and sham-needling/no intervention (95 %CI: -29.13 to -8.95). High levels of safety were demonstrated by the low rates of side effects/withdrawal. Inconsistency in reporting of outcomes was a major limitation. In conclusion, moderate-quality evidence suggests that acupuncture may be an effective and safe method in relieving persistent head and neck myofascial pain. Optimizing study designs and standardizing outcome measures are needed for future RCTs.
INTRODUCTION: Myofascial pain with myofascial triggers are common musculoskeletal complaints. Popular treatments include manual therapy, dry needling, and dry cupping. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy of each treatment in the short-term relief of myofascial pain and myofascial trigger points.
METHODS: Search engines included Google Scholar, EBSCO Host, and PubMed. Searches were performed for each modality using the keywords myofascial pain syndrome and myofascial trigger points. The inclusion criteria included English-language, peer-reviewed journals; a diagnosis of myofascial pain syndrome or trigger points; manual therapy, dry needling, or dry cupping treatments; retrospective studies or prospective methodology; and inclusion of outcome measures.
RESULTS: Eight studies on manual therapy, twenty-three studies on dry needling, and two studies on dry cupping met the inclusion criteria. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was utilized to assess the quality of all articles.
DISCUSSION: While there was a moderate number of randomized controlled trials supporting the use of manual therapy, the evidence for dry needling ranged from very low to moderate compared to control groups, sham interventions, or other treatments and there was a paucity of data on dry cupping. Limitations included unclear methodologies, high risk for bias, inadequate blinding, no control group, and small sample sizes.
CONCLUSION: While there is moderate evidence for manual therapy in myofascial pain treatment, the evidence for dry needling and cupping is not greater than placebo. Future studies should address the limitations of small sample sizes, unclear methodologies, poor blinding, and lack of control groups.
Despite wide use in clinical practice, acupuncture remains a controversial treatment for chronic pain. Our objective was to update an individual patient data meta-analysis to determine the effect size of acupuncture for four chronic pain conditions.We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials randomized trials published up until December 31, 2015. We included randomized trials of acupuncture needling versus either sham acupuncture or no acupuncture control for non-specific musculoskeletal pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache, or shoulder pain. Trials were only included if allocation concealment was unambiguously determined to be adequate. Raw data were obtained from study authors and entered into an individual patient data meta-analysis. The main outcome measures were pain and function. An additional 13 trials were identified, with data received for a total of 20,827 patients from 39 trials. Acupuncture was superior to both sham and no acupuncture control for each pain condition (all p<0.001) with differences between groups close to 0.5 standard deviations (SD) for comparison with no acupuncture control and close to 0.2 SDs in comparison with sham. We also found clear evidence that the effects of acupuncture persist over time with only a small decrease, approximately 15%, in treatment effect at one year. In secondary analyses, we found no obvious association between trial outcome and characteristics of acupuncture treatment, but effect sizes of acupuncture were associated with the type of control group, with smaller effects sizes for sham controlled trials that used a penetrating needle for sham, and for trials that had high intensity of intervention in the control arm.We conclude that acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain, with treatment effects persisting over time. While factors in addition to the specific effects of needling at correct acupuncture point locations are important contributors to the treatment effect, decreases in pain following acupuncture cannot be explained solely in terms of placebo effects. Variations in the effect size of acupuncture in different trials are driven predominately by differences in treatments received by the control group rather than by differences in the characteristics of acupuncture treatment.
PERSPECTIVE: Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic musculosketal, headache and osteoarthritis pain. Treatment effects of acupuncture persist over time and cannot be explained solely in terms of placebo effects. Referral for a course of acupuncture treatment is a reasonable option for a patient with chronic pain.
There is uncertainty regarding how long the effects of acupuncture treatment persist after a course of treatment. We aimed to determine the trajectory of pain scores over time after acupuncture, using a large individual patient data set from high-quality randomized trials of acupuncture for chronic pain. The available individual patient data set included 29 trials and 17,922 patients. The chronic pain conditions included musculoskeletal pain (low back, neck, and shoulder), osteoarthritis of the knee, and headache/migraine. We used meta-analytic techniques to determine the trajectory of posttreatment pain scores. Data on longer term follow-up were available for 20 trials, including 6376 patients. In trials comparing acupuncture to no acupuncture control (wait-list, usual care, etc), effect sizes diminished by a nonsignificant 0.011 SD per 3 months (95% confidence interval: 20.014 to 0.037, P = 0.4) after treatment ended. The central estimate suggests that approximately 90% of the benefit of acupuncture relative to controls would be sustained at 12 months. For trials comparing acupuncture to sham, we observed a reduction in effect size of 0.025 SD per 3 months (95% confidence interval: 0.000-0.050, P = 0.050), suggesting approximately a 50% diminution at 12 months. The effects of a course of acupuncture treatment for patients with chronic pain do not seem to decrease importantly over 12 months. Patients can generally be reassured that treatment effects persist. Studies of the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture should take our findings into account when considering the time horizon of acupuncture effects. Further research should measure longer term outcomes of acupuncture.
BACKGROUND: Massage and aromatherapy massage are used to relieve cancer-related symptoms. A number of claims have been made for these treatments including reduction of pain, anxiety, depression, and stress. Other studies have not shown these benefits.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of massage with or without aromatherapy on pain and other symptoms associated with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and trials registries up to August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed Cancer Subset, SADCCT, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies (RCTs) reporting the effects of aromatherapy or massage therapy, or both, in people with cancer of any age. We applied no language restrictions. Comparators were massage (using carrier oil only) versus no massage, massage with aromatherapy (using carrier oil plus essential oils) versus no massage, and massage with aromatherapy (using carrier oil plus essential oils) versus massage without aromatherapy (using carrier oil only).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data relating to pain and other symptoms associated with cancer, using standardised forms. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies (21 reports) of very low quality evidence with a total of 1274 participants. We included 14 studies (16 reports) in a qualitative synthesis and five studies in a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Thirteen studies (14 reports, 596 participants) compared massage with no massage. Six studies (seven reports, 561 participants) compared aromatherapy massage with no massage. Two studies (117 participants) compared massage with aromatherapy and massage without aromatherapy. Fourteen studies had a high risk of bias related to sample size and 15 studies had a low risk of bias for blinding the outcome assessment. We judged the studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall. Our primary outcomes were pain and psychological symptoms. Two studies reported physical distress, rash, and general malaise as adverse events. The remaining 17 studies did not report adverse events. We downgraded the GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes to very low because of observed imprecision, indirectness, imbalance between groups in many studies, and limitations of study design. Massage versus no-massage groupsWe analysed results for pain and anxiety but the quality of evidence was very low as most studies were small and considered at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting. Short-term pain (Present Pain Intensity-Visual Analogue Scale) was greater for the massage group compared with the no-massage group (one RCT, n = 72, mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.67 to -0.53). Data for anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-state) relief showed no significant difference in anxiety between the groups (three RCTs, n = 98, combined MD -5.36, 95% CI -16.06 to 5.34). The subgroup analysis for anxiety revealed that the anxiety relief for children was greater for the massage group compared with the no-massage group (one RCT, n = 30, MD -14.70, 95% CI -19.33 to -10.07), but the size of this effect was considered not clinically significant. Furthermore, this review demonstrated no differences in effects of massage on depression, mood disturbance, psychological distress, nausea, fatigue, physical symptom distress, or quality of life when compared with no massage. Massage with aromatherapy versus no-massage groupsWe analysed results for pain, anxiety, symptoms relating to the breast, and quality of life but the quality of evidence was very low as studies were generally at a high risk of bias. There was some indication of benefit in the aromatherapy-massage group but this benefit is unlikely to translate into clinical benefit. The relief of medium- and long-term pain (medium-term: one RCT, n = 86, MD 5.30, 95% CI 1.52 to 9.08; long-term: one RCT, n = 86, MD 3.80, 95% CI 0.19 to 7.41), anxiety (two RCTs, n = 253, combined MD -4.50, 95% CI -7.70 to -1.30), and long-term symptoms relating to the breast in people with breast cancer (one RCT, n = 86, MD -9.80, 95% CI -19.13 to -0.47) was greater for the aromatherapy-massage group, but the results were considered not clinically significant. The medium-term quality of life score was lower (better) for the aromatherapy-massage group compared with the no-massage group (one RCT, n = 30, MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.54). Massage with aromatherapy versus massage without aromatherapy groupsFrom the limited evidence available, we were unable to assess the effect of adding aromatherapy to massage on the relief of pain, psychological symptoms including anxiety and depression, physical symptom distress, or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of evidence on the clinical effectiveness of massage for symptom relief in people with cancer. Most studies were too small to be reliable and key outcomes were not reported. Any further studies of aromatherapy and massage will need to address these concerns.
BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD) requires a complex diagnostic and therapeutic approach, which usually involves a multidisciplinary management. Among these treatments, musculoskeletal manual techniques are used to improve health and healing.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of musculoskeletal manual approach in temporomandibular joint disorder patients.
DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
METHODS: During August 2014 a systematic review of relevant databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, PEDro and ISI web of knowledge) was performed to identify controlled clinical trials without date restriction and restricted to the English language. Clinical outcomes were pain and range of motion focalized in temporomandibular joint. The mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and overall effect size were calculated at every post treatment. The PEDro scale was used to demonstrate the quality of the included studies.
RESULTS/FINDINGS: From the 308 articles identified by the search strategy, 8 articles met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference (p < 0.0001) and large effect on active mouth opening (SMD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.25) and on pain during active mouth opening (MD, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.30) in favor of musculoskeletal manual techniques when compared to other conservative treatments for TMD.
CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal manual approaches are effective for treating TMD. In the short term, there is a larger effect regarding the latter when compared to other conservative treatments for TMD.
Massage is widely used for neck pain, but its effectiveness remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the benefits and harms of massage compared to placebo or sham, no treatment or exercise as an adjuvant to the same co-intervention for acute to chronic persisting neck pain in adults with or without radiculopathy, including whiplash-associated disorders and cervicogenic headache.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, trial registries) to 1 October 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of massage with sham or placebo, no treatment or wait-list, or massage as an adjuvant treatment, in adults with acute, subacute or chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We transformed outcomes to standardise the direction of the effect (a smaller score is better). We used a partially contextualised approach relative to identified thresholds to report the effect size as slight-small, moderate or large-substantive.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 33 studies (1994 participants analysed). Selection (82%) and detection bias (94%) were common; multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding to the placebo was effective. Massage was compared with placebo (n = 10) or no treatment (n = 8), or assessed as an adjuvant to the same co-treatment (n = 15). The trials studied adults aged 18 to 70 years, 70% female, with mean pain severity of 51.8 (standard deviation (SD) 14.1) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100). Neck pain was subacute-chronic and classified as non-specific neck pain (85%, including n = 1 whiplash), radiculopathy (6%) or cervicogenic headache (9%). Trials were conducted in outpatient settings in Asia (n = 11), America (n = 5), Africa (n = 1), Europe (n = 12) and the Middle East (n = 4). Trials received research funding (15%) from research institutes. We report the main results for the comparison of massage versus placebo. Low-certainty evidence indicates that massage probably results in little to no difference in pain, function-disability and health-related quality of life when compared against a placebo for subacute-chronic neck pain at up to 12 weeks follow-up. It may slightly improve participant-reported treatment success. Subgroup analysis by dose showed a clinically important difference favouring a high dose (≥ 8 sessions over four weeks for ≥ 30 minutes duration). There is very low-certainty evidence for total adverse events. Data on patient satisfaction and serious adverse events were not available. Pain was a mean of 20.55 points with placebo and improved by 3.43 points with massage (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.16 better to 1.29 worse) on a 0 to 100 scale, where a lower score indicates less pain (8 studies, 403 participants; I2 = 39%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to indirectness; most trials in the placebo comparison used suboptimal massage doses (only single sessions). Selection, performance and detection bias were evident as multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding was effective, respectively. Function-disability was a mean of 30.90 points with placebo and improved by 9.69 points with massage (95% CI 17.57 better to 1.81 better) on the Neck Disability Index 0 to 100, where a lower score indicates better function (2 studies, 68 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (the wide CI represents slight to moderate benefit that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of selection, performance and detection biases. Participant-reported treatment success was a mean of 3.1 points with placebo and improved by 0.80 points with massage (95% CI 1.39 better to 0.21 better) on a Global Improvement 1 to 7 scale, where a lower score indicates very much improved (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (single study with a wide CI that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of performance as well as detection bias. Health-related quality of life was a mean of 43.2 points with placebo and improved by 5.30 points with massage (95% CI 8.24 better to 2.36 better) on the SF-12 (physical) 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates the lowest level of health (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence once for imprecision (a single small study) and risk of performance and detection bias. We are uncertain whether massage results in increased total adverse events, such as treatment soreness, sweating or low blood pressure (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.08 to 11.55; 2 studies, 175 participants; I2 = 77%). We downgraded the evidence to very low-certainty due to unexplained inconsistency, risk of performance and detection bias, and imprecision (the CI was extremely wide and the total number of events was very small, i.e < 200 events).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The contribution of massage to the management of neck pain remains uncertain given the predominance of low-certainty evidence in this field. For subacute and chronic neck pain (closest to 12 weeks follow-up), massage may result in a little or no difference in improving pain, function-disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success when compared to a placebo. Inadequate reporting on adverse events precluded analysis. Focused planning for larger, adequately dosed, well-designed trials is needed.
