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.
BACKGROUND: Ischemic compression is widely used to clinically treat neck pain. However, no meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate the effects of this process on neck pain.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of ischemic compression on the myofascial trigger points for improving neck pain-related symptoms (mainly pain, joint mobility limitation and function limitation) and to compare ischemic compression with other therapies.
METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, OVID, Web of Science, EBSCO, SCOUPS, Cochrane Library, PEDro, Wanfang, CNKI and Chinese VIP Database in June 2021. Only randomised controlled trials on the effects of ischemic compression on neck pain were included. The major outcomes were pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, pain-related disability and range of motion.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 725 participants were included. Significant differences were observed between ischemic compression and sham/no treatment group in pain intensity, pressure pain threshold and range of motion immediately and in the short term. Significant effect sizes of dry needling were observed over ischemic compression in terms of improving pain intensity (SMD = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.16; P= 0.02), pain-related disability (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.19 to 1.17; P= 0.007) and range of motion (MD =-2.12; 95% CI: -2.59 to -1.65; P< 0.001) immediately after treatment. Dry needling also showed a significant small effect size for the short-term reduction of pain (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.85; P= 0.03).
CONCLUSION: Ischemic compression can be recommended in the immediate and short-term pain relief and increase in the pressure pain threshold and range of motion. Dry needling is superior to ischemic compression in relieving pain and improving pain-related disability and range of motion immediately after treatment.
(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.
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.
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.
Question: Is massage therapy effective for people with musculoskeletal disorders compared to any other treatment or no treatment? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Participants: People with musculoskeletal disorders. INTERVENTIONS: Massage therapy (manual manipulation of the soft tissues) as a stand-alone intervention. Outcome: The primary outcomes were pain and function. RESULTS: The 26 eligible randomised trials involved 2565 participants. The mean sample size was 95 participants (range 16 to 579) per study; 10 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias. Overall, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage reduces pain in the short term compared to no treatment in people with shoulder pain and osteoarthritis of the knee, but not in those with low back pain or neck pain. Furthermore, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage improves function in the short term compared to no treatment in people with low back pain, knee arthritis or shoulder pain. Low-to-very-low-level evidence from single studies indicated no clear benefits of massage over acupuncture, joint mobilisation, manipulation or relaxation therapy in people with fibromyalgia, low back pain and general musculoskeletal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Massage therapy, as a stand-alone treatment, reduces pain and improves function compared to no treatment in some musculoskeletal conditions. When massage is compared to another active treatment, no clear benefit was evident. [Bervoets DC, Luijsterburg PAJ, Alessie JJN, Buijs MJ, Verhagen AP (2015) Massage therapy has short-term benefits for people with common musculoskeletal disorders compared to no treatment: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 61: 106–116]
BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. It is experienced by 70% to 80% of adults at some time in their lives. Massage therapy has the potential to minimize pain and speed return to normal function.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of massage therapy for people with non-specific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed to August 2014, and the following databases to July 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and Proquest Dissertation Abstracts. We also checked reference lists. There were no language restrictions used.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials of adults with non-specific LBP classified as acute, sub-acute or chronic. Massage was defined as soft-tissue manipulation using the hands or a mechanical device. We grouped the comparison groups into two types: inactive controls (sham therapy, waiting list, or no treatment), and active controls (manipulation, mobilization, TENS, acupuncture, traction, relaxation, physical therapy, exercises or self-care education).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and followed CBN guidelines. Two independent authors performed article selection, data extraction and critical appraisal.
MAIN RESULTS: In total we included 25 trials (3096 participants) in this review update. The majority was funded by not-for-profit organizations. One trial included participants with acute LBP, and the remaining trials included people with sub-acute or chronic LBP (CLBP). In three trials massage was done with a mechanical device, and the remaining trials used only the hands. The most common type of bias in these studies was performance and measurement bias because it is difficult to blind participants, massage therapists and the measuring outcomes. We judged the quality of the evidence to be "low" to "very low", and the main reasons for downgrading the evidence were risk of bias and imprecision. There was no suggestion of publication bias. For acute LBP, massage was found to be better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -1.24, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.64; participants = 51; studies = 1)) in the short-term, but not for function ((SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.06; participants = 51; studies = 1)). For sub-acute and chronic LBP, massage was better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -0.75, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.60; participants = 761; studies = 7)) and function (SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.39; 725 participants; 6 studies; ) in the short-term, but not in the long-term; however, when compared to active controls, massage was better for pain, both in the short ((SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.13; participants = 964; studies = 12)) and long-term follow-up ((SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.01; participants = 757; studies = 5)), but no differences were found for function (both in the short and long-term). There were no reports of serious adverse events in any of these trials. Increased pain intensity was the most common adverse event reported in 1.5% to 25% of the participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have very little confidence that massage is an effective treatment for LBP. Acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP had improvements in pain outcomes with massage only in the short-term follow-up. Functional improvement was observed in participants with sub-acute and chronic LBP when compared with inactive controls, but only for the short-term follow-up. There were only minor adverse effects with massage.
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.
