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.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short-term outcome of treatment by auricular acupressure (AA) on postoperative pain among hip fracture (HF) patients. METHODS: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials on this topic was conducted through May 2022 by searching multiple English and Chinese databases. The methodological quality of the included trails was assessed by the Cochrane Handbook tool, and relevant data were extracted and statistically analyzed by RevMan 5.4.1 software. The quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was evaluated by GRADEpro GDT. RESULTS: Fourteen trials with a total of 1390 participants were included in this study. Compared with conventional treatment (CT) alone, the combination of AA and CT had a significantly greater effect on the visual analog scale at 12 h (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.30), 24 h (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.25), 36 h (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.02), 48 h (MD -0.52, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.08), and 72 h (MD -0.72, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.42), amount of analgesics used (MD -12.35, 95% CI -14.21 to -10.48), Harris Hip Score (MD 6.58, 95% CI 3.60 to 9.56), effective rate (OR 6.37, 95% CI 2.68 to 15.15), and adverse events (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CT alone, the combination of AA and CRT had a significantly greater effect on postoperative pain in HF patients. However, trails with a rigorous methodology, including standard protocols for AA and multiethnic subjects, are still needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
Objectives. This systematic review aims to summarize the existing literature on Tai Chi randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and recommend Tai Chi exercise prescriptions for different diseases and populations. Methods. A systematic search for Tai Chi RCTs was conducted in five electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science) from their inception to December 2019. SPSS 20.0 software and Microsoft Excel 2019 were used to analyze the data, and the risk of bias tool in the RevMan 5.3.5 software was used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs. Results. A total of 139 articles were identified, including diseased populations (95, 68.3%) and healthy populations (44, 31.7%). The diseased populations included the following 10 disease types: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue diseases (34.7%), circulatory system diseases (23.2%), mental and behavioral disorders (12.6%), nervous system diseases (11.6%), respiratory system diseases (6.3%), endocrine, nutritional or metabolic diseases (5.3%), neoplasms (3.2%), injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes (1.1%), genitourinary system diseases (1.1%), and diseases of the eye and adnexa (1.1%). Tai Chi exercise prescription was generally classified as moderate intensity. The most commonly applied Tai Chi style was Yang style (92, 66.2%), and the most frequently specified Tai Chi form was simplified 24-form Tai Chi (43, 30.9%). 12 weeks and 24 weeks, 2-3 times a week, and 60 min each time was the most commonly used cycle, frequency, and time of exercise in Tai Chi exercise prescriptions. Conclusions. We recommend the more commonly used Tai Chi exercise prescriptions for different diseases and populations based on clinical evidence of Tai Chi. Further clinical research on Tai Chi should be combined with principles of exercise prescription to conduct large-sample epidemiological studies and long-term prospective follow-up studies to provide more substantive clinical evidence for Tai Chi exercise prescriptions.
IMPORTANCE: Research into acupuncture and acupressure and their application for cancer pain has been growing, but the findings have been inconsistent.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the existing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for evidence of the association of acupuncture and acupressure with reduction in cancer pain.
DATA SOURCES: Three English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) and 4 Chinese-language biomedical databases (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang) were searched for RCTs published from database inception through March 31, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials that compared acupuncture and acupressure with a sham control, analgesic therapy, or usual care for managing cancer pain were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were screened and extracted independently using predesigned forms. The quality of RCTs was appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Random-effects modeling was used to calculate the effect sizes of included RCTs. The quality of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by the Brief Pain Inventory, Numerical Rating Scale, Visual Analog Scale, or Verbal Rating Scale.
RESULTS: A total of 17 RCTs (with 1111 patients) were included in the systematic review, and data from 14 RCTs (with 920 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. Seven sham-controlled RCTs (35%) were notable for their high quality, being judged to have a low risk of bias for all of their domains, and showed that real (compared with sham) acupuncture was associated with reduced pain intensity (mean difference [MD], -1.38 points; 95% CI, -2.13 to -0.64 points; I2 = 81%). A favorable association was also seen when acupuncture and acupressure were combined with analgesic therapy in 6 RCTs for reducing pain intensity (MD, -1.44 points; 95% CI, -1.98 to -0.89; I2 = 92%) and in 2 RCTs for reducing opioid dose (MD, -30.00 mg morphine equivalent daily dose; 95% CI, -37.5 mg to -22.5 mg). The evidence grade was moderate because of the substantial heterogeneity among studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that acupuncture and/or acupressure was significantly associated with reduced cancer pain and decreased use of analgesics, although the evidence level was moderate. This finding suggests that more rigorous trials are needed to identify the association of acupuncture and acupressure with specific types of cancer pain and to integrate such evidence into clinical care to reduce opioid use.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), compared with sham or placebo therapies.
METHODS: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL to December 2016, and conducted searches from 1980 to December 2016 in PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase. There were no regional restrictions applied. We included only randomised controlled trials of adults with NSLBP. Placebo/sham procedures were required of the control interventions. The trials were combined using meta-analysis when the data reported allowed for statistical pooling.
RESULTS: 14 trials (2110 participants) were included in the review, and 9 were included in the meta-analysis. Immediately after the acupuncture treatment we found statistically significant differences in pain reduction between acupuncture and sham or placebo therapy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.40, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.25; I2 7%; 753 participants; 9 studies), but there were no differences in function (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.05, 95% CI -3.61 to 1.52; I2 79%; 462 participants; 4 studies). At follow-up, there were significant differences in pain reduction (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.09; I2 67%), but not in function (WMD -0.98, 95%CI -3.36 to 1.40; I2 87%). We conducted subgroup analyses both immediately after treatment and at follow-up.
CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence of efficacy for acupuncture in terms of pain reduction immediately after treatment for NSLBP ((sub)acute and chronic) when compared to sham or placebo acupuncture.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42017059438.
BACKGROUND: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture reveal no significant differences between acupuncture and so-called placebo acupuncture. There is a strong tendency to replace the term "placebo" by the term "sham," because any needling stimulates a certain physiological response. However, neither concept accounts for the great diversity of results in RCTs comparing verum acupuncture and sham (placebo) acupuncture. Some trials have shown little or no difference, while other studies have found statistically significant differences.
OBJECTIVE: Verum acupuncture and sham (placebo) acupuncture may achieve similar results to the extent that they share active constituents. We identified these common active constituents as dermatomes: the segmental structure of the human body. In our study, we tested the hypothesis that the more verum and sham (placebo) acupuncture share the same dermatomes, the closer the clinical outcomes will be, and vice versa.
METHODS: All major databases were searched for RCTs that tested acupuncture versus sham (placebo) acupuncture. The dermatome charts of Hansen and Schliack were used to verify verum and sham (placebo) needling locations. Reported clinical outcomes were assessed in relation to the percentage of overlap between the dermatomes stimulated by acupuncture and sham (placebo) acupuncture.
RESULTS: Our literature search yielded a total of 1738 references. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The effects of sham (placebo) acupuncture varied according to the dermatomes stimulated: high overlap with those stimulated by verum acupuncture resulted in almost identical efficacy, while low overlap resulted in significant differences in efficacy. Clinical outcomes were similar when verum acupuncture and sham (placebo) acupuncture shared the same dermatomes (p < 0.01).
DISCUSSION: The findings of this review confirm our hypothesis. Acupuncture studies that employed verum and sham locations on overlapping dermatomes helped to create a mediocre to negative picture of acupuncture's efficacy. The segmental structure of the body with its interconnected reflex system offers an additional neurophysiological explanation for the effectiveness of acupuncture applied to structures segmentally innervated by the spinal and visceral nervous system. Further comparative acupuncture studies should be based on knowledge of segmental anatomy. In testing verum acupuncture versus sham acupuncture, the chosen sham acupuncture needling locations should be situated on non-overlapping dermatomes.
Establish the utility of acupressure for chronic low back pain (CLBP). A systematic review of English articles using PubMed and Embase was conducted from 01/2004-01/2020. Search terms included: "acupressure" and "chronic pain" or "low back pain". Articles included were randomized control trials evaluating acupressure in adult patients with CLBP. 150 studies met initial criteria; 6 were included (n = 468). The average total treatment length was 4 weeks. The main treatment outcomes were changes in pain, disability, and sleep. All studies found a clinically significant reduction (, ≥30% decrease) in pain for the treatment groups. All studies found a clinically significant and/or statistically significant improvement in disability in at least one of the treatment groups. All studies found a statistically significant improvement in sleep. No study found significant adverse events. Acupressure is a feasible, effective, safe, low cost nonpharmacologic method to treat CLBP. • Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of global disability. • Despite its prevalence, safe and effective therapy is not established. • Acupressure is a noninvasive, low cost, and effective CLBP treatment option.
Objective. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-Analysis. Results. Of the 275 screened studies, nine RCTs involving 783 patients with cancer pain were systematically reviewed. Compared with drug therapy, auricular therapy plus drug therapy has significant advantages both in the effective rate for pain relief (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; P<0.00001) and adverse effects rate (RR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.37, 0.58; P<0.00001). And the result revealed that auricular acupuncture had superior pain-relieving effects as compared with sham auricular acupuncture (SMD =-1.45; 95% CI-2.80,-0.09; P=0.04). However, the analysis indicated no difference on the effective rate for pain relief between auricular therapy and drug therapy (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; P=0.46). Conclusion. Our meta-Analysis indicated that auricular therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of cancer pain, and auricular therapy plus drug therapy is more effective than drug therapy alone, whether in terms of pain relief or adverse reactions. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations; future large, rigor, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of auricular therapy on cancer pain.
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.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of acupuncture for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) through systematic review of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS: Studies were identified in electronic databases from their inception to February 2018, and were grouped according to the control interventions. The outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) checklist. The review was reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.
RESULTS: 25 trials (n=7587 participants) were identified and included in a meta-analysis. The results showed that acupuncture was more effective at inducing pain relief than: no treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.69, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.38); sham acupuncture in the immediate term (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.18), short term (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.17), and intermediate term (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.05); and usual care in the short term (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.33) and intermediate term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.10). Also, adjunctive acupuncture with usual care was more effective than usual care alone at all time points studied. With regard to functional improvement, the analysis showed a significant difference between acupuncture and no treatment (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.30), whereas the other control therapies could not be assessed.
CONCLUSION: We draw a cautious conclusion that acupuncture appears to be effective for NSLBP and that acupuncture may be an important supplement to usual care in the management of NSLBP.
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.
