(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.
BACKGROUND: Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms among breast cancer survivors. Although massage therapy has been commonly used for fatigue management, relevant evidence on the effectiveness of massage therapy for the reduction of fatigue in breast cancer survivors is still unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the research evidence on the effectiveness and safety of massage therapy to manage fatigue in breast cancer survivors and summarize the characteristics of massage therapy protocols utilized for fatigue management in breast cancer survivors.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using massage therapy to manage cancer-related fatigue were searched in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, Wan Fang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from the inception of each database to March 2021. The Cochrane Back Review Group Risk of Bias Assessment Criteria was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Descriptive analysis was applied for a summary and synthesis of the findings. The primary outcome was fatigue measured by any patient-reported questionnaires, and the secondary outcomes were quality of life and massage-therapy-related adverse events.
RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included. Massage therapy was found to have a positive effect on fatigue management compared with routine care/wait list control groups and sham massage. Despite these encouraging findings, the review concluded that most of the included studies exhibited an unsatisfactory experimental design, particularly, inadequate blinding and allocation concealment. The duration and frequency of the massage therapy interventions varied across the studies. Adverse events were reported in three included studies, with no study conducting causality analysis.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides the latest research evidence to support massage therapy as an encouraging complementary and alternative medicine approach to managing fatigue in breast cancer survivors. More rigorously designed, large-scale, sham-controlled RCTs are needed to further conclude the specific therapeutic effectiveness and safety issues of massage therapy for fatigue management.
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: Massage as a complementary and alternative therapy has been associated with enhancing health and coping with treatment-related side effects in patients with breast cancer worldwide. This systematic review examined whether massage interventions provide any measurable benefit in breast cancer-related symptoms.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in PubMed, EMBASE.com and the Cochrane Library through June 2013. We evaluated the quality of the studies included by the Cochrane Handbook 5.2 standards and analyzed the data using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software.
RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs with a total of 950 participants were included. Compared with the control group, our meta-analysis showed that patients receiving regular use of massage had significantly greater reductions in anger and fatigue symptoms. However, there were no significant differences in depression, anxiety, pain, upper limb lymphedema, cortisol and health-related quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence demonstrates that there was mild evidence that massage may be a useful intervention in alleviating negative emotions and fatigue in patients with breast cancer. More trials with longer follow-up are needed to determine the exact long-term efficacy of this class of complementary and alternative medicine on breast cancer-related symptoms and quality of life.
Aims To assess and synthesize the evidence of the effects and safety of non-pharmacological interventions in treating pain in patients with advanced cancer. Background Pain is a common symptom experienced by patients with advanced cancer; the treatment of such pain is often suboptimal. To manage it, non-pharmacological interventions are recommended after pharmacological treatments have been re-evaluated and modified. However, there remains a lack of knowledge about the effects and safety of such interventions. Design A systematic review was conducted based on the procedure of the Centre of Reviews and Dissemination. Data Sources Research papers published between 2000-2013 were identified from the following databases: CINAHL, MEDIC, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Psyc INFO. The references in the selected studies were searched manually. Review Methods The studies selected were reviewed for quality, using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group risk of bias assessment criteria. Results There was limited evidence that some of the non-pharmacological interventions were promising with respect to reducing cancer pain. Relatively, few adverse events were reported as a result of using such interventions. Conclusion It was not possible to draw conclusions about the effects and safety of the non-pharmacological interventions in reducing cancer pain. Some interventions showed promising short-term effects, but there is a need for more rigorous trials. Qualitative studies are required to collect information about patients' perceptions. There are several research gaps: we found no studies about music, spiritual care, hypnosis, active coping training, cold or ultrasonic stimulation.
Fatigue, experienced by patients during and following cancer treatment, is a significant clinical problem. It is a prevalent and distressing symptom yet pharmacological interventions are used little and confer limited benefit for patients. However, many cancer patients use some form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and some evidence suggests it may relieve fatigue. A systematic review was conducted to appraise the effectiveness of CAM interventions in ameliorating cancer-related fatigue. Systematic searches of biomedical, nursing, and specialist CAM databases were conducted, including Medline, Embase, and AMED. Included papers described interventions classified as CAM by the National Centre of Complementary and Alternative Medicine and evaluated through randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental design. Twenty studies were eligible for the review, of which 15 were RCTs. Forms of CAM interventions examined included acupuncture, massage, yoga, and relaxation training. The review identified some limited evidence suggesting hypnosis and ginseng may prevent rises in cancer-related fatigue in people undergoing treatment for cancer and acupuncture and that biofield healing may reduce cancer-related fatigue following cancer treatments. Evidence to date suggests that multivitamins are ineffective at reducing cancer-related fatigue. However, trials incorporated within the review varied greatly in quality; most were methodologically weak and at high risk of bias. Consequently, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude with certainty the effectiveness or otherwise of CAM in reducing cancer-related fatigue. The design and methods employed in future trials of CAM should be more rigorous; increasing the strength of evidence should be a priority.
(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.
