For RasWriter only
BSN273
ijgm-6-733.pdf
© 2013 Kumar et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Ltd, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further
permission from Dove Medical Press Ltd, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Ltd. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php
International Journal of General Medicine 2013:6 733–741
International Journal of General Medicine Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress 733
R e v I e w
open access to scientific and medical research
Open Access Full Text Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S50243
The effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews
Saravana Kumar1
Kate Beaton1
Tricia Hughes2
1International Centre for Allied Health evidence, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; 2Australian Association of Massage Therapists, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Correspondence: Saravana Kumar International Centre for Allied Health evidence (iCAHe), C7-61 City east Campus University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, South Australia, Australia Tel +61 8 8302 2085 Fax +61 8 8302 2766 email [email protected]
Introduction: The last decade has seen a growth in the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine therapies, and one of the most popular and sought-after complementary and
alternative medicine therapies for nonspecific low back pain is massage. Massage may often be
perceived as a safe therapeutic modality without any significant risks or side effects. However,
despite its popularity, there continues to be ongoing debate on the effectiveness of massage in
treating nonspecific low back pain. With a rapidly evolving research evidence base and access
to innovative means of synthesizing evidence, it is time to reinvestigate this issue.
Methods: A systematic, step-by-step approach, underpinned by best practice in reviewing the literature, was utilized as part of the methodology of this umbrella review. A systematic search was
conducted in the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE, AMED, ICONDA, Academic Search
Premier, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, CINAHL, HealthSource, SPORTDiscus,
PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Knowledge/Web of Science, PsycINFO, and
ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, investigating systematic reviews and meta-analyses
from January 2000 to December 2012, and restricted to English-language documents. Meth-
odological quality of included reviews was undertaken using the Centre for Evidence Based
Medicine critical appraisal tool.
Results: Nine systematic reviews were found. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews varied (from poor to excellent) although, overall, the primary research informing
these systematic reviews was generally considered to be weak quality. The findings indicate
that massage may be an effective treatment option when compared to placebo and some active
treatment options (such as relaxation), especially in the short term. There is conflicting and
contradictory findings for the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of nonspecific
low back pain when compared against other manual therapies (such as mobilization), standard
medical care, and acupuncture.
Conclusion: There is an emerging body of evidence, albeit small, that supports the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of non-specific low back pain in the short term. Due to
common methodological flaws in the primary research, which informed the systematic reviews,
recommendations arising from this evidence base should be interpreted with caution.
Keywords: massage therapy, systematic review, evidence-based practice, complementary and alternative medicine
Introduction Recent times have witnessed dramatic changes to health care. There is now an overt
recognition for quality to inform health care practices and this recognition for change
has been driven by an increasingly well-informed consumer of health service, the
patient, and other stakeholders who strive to underpin their service delivery within the
International Journal of General Medicine 2013:6submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress
Dovepress
734
Kumar et al
quality health care framework. The key components of this
framework include safety, effectiveness, patient centeredness,
timeliness, efficiency, and equity.1 Much of the drive towards
quality health care has been championed by evidence-based
practice, which recognizes the need for health care practices
to be underpinned by an integration of research evidence,
clinical expertise, and patient values.2
Low back pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal
disorders in modern society and is a major reason for health
care utilization.3,4 The impact of low back pain is widespread,
including physical, social, psychological, and economic
aspects of an individual’s life. Low back pain can include
discomfort in any area of the spine from the 12th rib to the
inferior gluteal fold, and is only considered to be specific if its
etiology is known (such as diagnoses of degenerative or other
disease, infection, fracture, etc).3–5 Low back pain is usually
reported as self-limiting (acute or subacute durations), but it
is estimated that approximately 10% of this population will
develop chronic pain.3,4,6 However, it has been suggested that
this may be an underestimation, with the true number of low
back pain sufferers who progress to chronic pain ranging
from 16-62% at 6–12 months post injury.7 This imposes a
large burden on the health care system.4–8 In spite of a large
body of research evidence and a plethora of interventions
being available in this area, how best to manage this condition
continues to pose a challenge.
The last decade has seen a growth in the utilization of
complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for a variety
of health conditions, including musculoskeletal disorders such
as nonspecific low back pain.3–9 Awareness in the general public
about CAM therapies is growing and their use is becoming
increasingly widespread.3,4 The total extrapolated cost in
Australia of CAMs and CAM therapists in 2004 was AUD1.
8 billion.9 Common CAM therapies for nonspecific low back
pain include acupuncture, massage, and manipulation.4
One of the most popular and sought-after CAM interven-
tions for nonspecific low back pain is massage.4 There are
many types of massage, including but not limited to Swedish
massage; Thai massage (a form of body work involving
assisted stretching); Shiatsu (a Japanese form of massage
utilizing finger and palm pressure and stretching techniques);
reflexology (the application of pressure to the zones of the
feet, hands, or ears, which are thought to correspond to various
body parts); and myofascial release (a manual therapy involv-
ing deep tissue work). Massage may often be perceived as a
safe therapeutic modality without any significant risks or side
effects3 and has been recommended by the Chartered Society
of Physiotherapy for the management of various pain-related
conditions, especially those of musculoskeletal origin.10
Despite its popularity, there continues to be ongoing debate on
the effectiveness of massage in treating nonspecific low back
pain. While there is a large body of primary research evidence,
such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), historically,
secondary research evidence such as systematic reviews often
fail to draw any clear conclusions with which to inform health
care practice and policies. With a rapidly evolving research
evidence base, and access to innovative means of synthesizing
evidence, it is time to reinvestigate this issue.
This systematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella
review) sets out to provide a synthesis of the best available
research evidence for the effectiveness of massage therapy for
adults suffering from nonspecific low back pain. Systematic
reviews are considered to be the highest level of evidence for
intervention questions.11
Methods Review question This review determined the effectiveness of various forms
of massage therapy on nonspecific low back pain in adults
by answering the question “What is the evidence for the
effectiveness of massage therapy in adults with nonspecific
low back pain?”
Types of participants Included participants were adults (≥18 years) suffering from non-specific acute, sub-acute or chronic low back pain (low
back pain is defined as pain that is localized from the 12th
rib to the inferior gluteal fold).3,4 “Non-specific” means that
there is no specific cause of the low back pain such as neo-
plasms, infection, osteoporosis, arthritic conditions, fracture,
radicular syndrome or inflammatory processes.3,12,16
Types of exposure The treatment of interest in this review was massage therapy.
For the purpose of this review, massage is defined as the
manual manipulation of the soft tissues of the body for
therapeutic purposes.3,5,12
Types of comparators Comparators included but were not limited to: sham or
placebo treatment, medical interventions, physical therapy,
electrical therapy (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimula-
tion, ultrasound, etc), pharmaceutical interventions, and other
forms of alternative therapy.
Types of outcomes Outcomes included but were not limited to: patient self-
report/subjective change of symptoms, assessment of
International Journal of General Medicine 2013:6
Table 1 Concepts searched and the keywords related to these concepts
Concept Keywords
Massage therapy
Massage therapy, massage, remedial therapy, acupressure, trigger point therapy, deep tissue massage, sports massage, Swedish massage, therapeutic massage, relaxation massage, muscle manipulation, musculoskeletal manipulation, Rolfing, reflexology, shiatsu, Thai massage, myofascial release, Bowen therapy
Low back pain
Back pain, backache, lumbago, sciatic, sciatica, spine, spinal, vertebrae, vertebral, intervertebral, low back pain, low back disorder, lower back pain, lumbar, myofascial pain syndromes, scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis, intervertebral disc degeneration, disc prolapse, back injury, back rehabilitation
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
735
Effectiveness of massage therapy for nonspecific low back pain
pain, functional status as measured by validated tools, and
assessment of range of motion.
Search strategy Databases A systematic search was conducted in the following
databases: Embase, MEDLINE, AMED, ICONDA,
Academic Search Premier, Australia/New Zealand Reference
Centre, CINAHL, HealthSource, SPORTDiscus, PubMed,
The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Knowledge/Web
of Science, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied
Health Source, investigating systematic reviews and meta-
analyses from January 2000 to December 2012, and restricted
to English-language documents. The key words used to
develop the search terms used can be found in Table 1. The
appropriate truncation symbols and Boolean operators were
used for each database searched and MeSH terms were used
where applicable. Two researchers independently conducted
the search with cross-checking of random databases to ensure
consistency across the search.
Pearling Reference lists of any umbrella reviews returned in this
search were also pearled for additional systematic reviews or
meta-analyses that may not have been found in the original
search.
Selection process Articles were included if they were systematic reviews
or meta-analyses that addressed massage therapy for the
treatment of nonspecific low back pain, as defined in this
umbrella review. Massage could have been administered
in either the treatment or control group, but information
regarding massage groups had to be reported separately to
any other complementary medicines or placebo treatments
administered. Articles that did not meet the PRISMA13
definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis were
excluded, as were any previous versions of updated sys-
tematic reviews. Articles that investigated massage therapy
as applied by chiropractors or physiotherapists were also
excluded, as these practitioners are not classified as mas-
sage therapists and therefore do not fit the criteria for this
umbrella review.
Methodological quality assessment Once relevant publications were identified, two reviewers
independently evaluated the methodological quality using
the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) critical
appraisal tool.14
Data extraction The data were extracted into a custom-built table based on
the CEBM questions. At this point, further exclusions were
made based on the full text of the articles.
Results Search findings A total of 1,854 articles were returned in the initial search
of the abovementioned databases, and two new system-
atic reviews were found by pearling the reference lists
of other umbrella reviews. Of these 1,856 articles, 262
were duplicate articles and 1,393 were removed based on
title, abstract, and study descriptors. The full text of the
remaining 201 articles was assessed by two independent
researchers for relevance, resulting in the exclusion of
a further 192 articles that did not match the inclusion
criteria. Any disputes were sent to a third researcher for
arbitration. The remaining nine systematic reviews were
included in this umbrella review. Figure 1 provides an
overview of the selection process using the PRISMA
flowchart format.13
Methodological quality of included reviews The nine included systematic reviews were critically
appraised with the CEBM critical appraisal tool.14 The over-
all quality scoring of the nine included systematic reviews
ranged from poor to excellent. Table 2 provides an overview
of critical appraisal scores for individual reviews.
The identified systematic reviews classified their find-
ings into three categories of low back pain: acute, chronic,
or mixed (where acute and chronic were reported together).
In order to maintain standardization and keep true to the
International Journal of General Medicine 2013:6
Id e n
ti fi
c a ti
o n
S c re
e n
in g
E li g
ib il it
y In
c lu
d e d
1,854 articles found in database search
1,856 articles found in search
1,594 articles screened for title and abstract
201 full text articles assessed for eligibility
9 systematic reviews included
262 duplicate articles excluded
1,393 articles excluded
192 full text articles excluded
2 new articles found through other methods
Figure 1 Flowchart of study selection. Note: Flowchart is as per the PRISMA flowchart format.13
Table 2 Score of included articles as per the Centre for evidence Based Medicine review validity appraisal sheet14
Author Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Quality score
Bronfort et al16 2004 Y N Y N N Descriptively Poor Brosseau et al20 2012 Y U Y Y Y Descriptively Good ernst et al17 2011 Y Y Y Y Y Descriptively excellent Furlan et al4 2012 Y Y Y U N Descriptively Good Kim et al18 2012 Y U Y U Y Meta-analysis Moderate Lewis and Johnson10 2006 Y N N Y N Descriptively Poor Lin et al23 2011 Y Y Y Y NA Descriptively excellent Pengel et al15 2002 Y U Y Y Y Descriptively Good van Middelkoop et al19 2011 Y U Y N Y Descriptively Moderate
Abbreviations: N, does not fulfill criteria; NA, not applicable to the paper; Q, question; U, unclear if it fulfills criteria; Y, fulfills criteria.
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
736
Kumar et al
research evidence, the following section summarizes the
findings based on these three categories.
Category one: the effectiveness of massage therapy for acute/subacute nonspecific low back pain in adults Furlan et al4 identified ten trials, comprising 1,424 participants,
that focused on the effectiveness of massage for low back
pain. Of these, two trials were on acute/subacute nonspecific
low back pain and included 158 participants. These trials
showed significant short-term posttreatment benefits on
pain and disability measures after massage when compared
to placebo or no treatment. The assessment of methodologi-
cal quality was only reported overall and the potential bias
in massage-specific studies cannot be reported. However,
it was reported that, overall (ie, in studies of acupuncture,
massage, mobilization, and spinal manipulation), the quality
of the studies was poor.
International Journal of General Medicine 2013:6 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress
Dovepress
737
Effectiveness of massage therapy for nonspecific low back pain
Pengel et al15 identified two high quality RCTs, compris-
ing 164 participants, which compared the use of massage to
spinal manipulative therapy and corsets to treat non-specific
low back pain. It was reported that spinal manipulative
therapy and corsets both improved disability scores in com-
parison with massage (effect size 1.5, confidence interval
[CI]: 0.8,2.2; effect size -0.9 CI -1.6, -0.1) when using the
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ).
Therefore, to summarize this research evidence, it is
likely that massage therapy may offer some positive benefits
in terms of reduction in pain and disability in the short term,
when compared to placebo or no treatment. However, this
was not the case when massage therapy was compared with
spinal manipulative therapy and corsets.
Category two: the effectiveness of massage therapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain in adults Bronfort et al16 identified one RCT, comprising 164 par-
ticipants, which investigated spinal manipulation therapy
and various forms of massage therapy for the treatment
of chronic low back pain. The findings from this RCT, of
low methodological quality (38%), indicated that massage
therapy was less effective than spinal manipulative therapy
applied by a chiropractor for disability outcomes (statisti-
cally significant), but not for pain improvement (statistically
nonsignificant).
Ernst et al17 identified two trials, comprising 249 partici-
pants, investigating reflexology for chronic low back pain.
The authors assessed the methodological quality of the two
trials they found using the Jadad scale and found that one of
the RCTs was moderate (3/5) and the other was high quality
(5/5). Results from both included trials were similar with
no significant change found between groups in either trial.
While effects were found in one of the two included trials,
this was not significant for reflexology in the treatment of low
back pain. This systematic review failed to provide evidence
that reflexology has benefits beyond that of a placebo effect.
Ernst et al state: “In conclusion, the notion that reflexology
is an effective treatment option is currently not based on
the evidence from independently replicated, high-quality,
clinical trials.”17
Furlan et al4 identif ied ten trials, comprising 1,424
participants, which focused on the efficacy of massage
for low back pain. Of these ten trials, eight investigated
chronic nonspecific low back pain in 1,266 participants.
The evidence indicated that massage was either no different
or better than mobilization in terms of immediate and
intermediate pain intensity (Short Form-36 pain scale,
McGill Pain Questionnaire [two trials]) and disability (two
trials), determined using the Oswestry Disability Index
and RMDQ. According to two meta-analyses, massage was
significantly better in terms of pain reduction (using the
visual analog scale [VAS]) in comparison with relaxation
and physical therapy (defined by Furlan et al4 as exercise
and/or electrotherapy) immediately following treatment, for
those with chronic nonspecific low back pain. In terms of
the intermediate effect of massage for patients with chronic
nonspecific low back pain, there were no significant differ-
ences in disability (according to RMDQ) or pain (VAS) when
compared with usual care (exercise and advice). Furlan et al4
also found one trial indicating that massage significantly
reduced pain intensity and disability in both immediate and
long-term follow-ups compared to acupuncture. The assess-
ment of quality was only reported overall; the potential bias
in massage-specific studies cannot be reported. However,
it was reported that, overall (ie, in studies of acupuncture,
massage, mobilization, and spinal manipulation), the quality
of the studies was poor.
Kim et al18 identified two RCTs, comprising 275 par-
ticipants, which reported on the use of acupressure (press-
ing acupuncture points with a finger or device) for the
treatment of chronic low back pain compared to routine
physical therapy. Both trials showed significant effects on
pain reduction compared to the routine physical therapy.
A meta-analysis was conducted for the two RCTs report-
ing pain intensity posttreatment (4 weeks) and at 6-month
follow-up for acupressure versus routine physical therapy
for participants with chronic low back pain. This revealed
that acupressure was more effective than physical therapy at
4 weeks. The authors state:
… meta-analysis demonstrated acupressure to be superior
to physical therapy in terms of pain [N = 275; SMD −0.71; 95 per cent CI −0.96 to −0.47; P < 0.00001; heterogeneity:
χ2 = 0.15, P = 0.70, I 2 = 0 per cent] after four weeks post- treatment.18
At the 6-month follow-up, acupressure had a significant
effect on pain, but the authors report presence of heterogene-
ity in the data analysis.
van Middelkoop et al19 identified three low-quality RCTs,
comprising 163 participants, which indicated that there was
no statistically significant reduction in pain when the massage
groups were compared with the control groups (relaxation
therapy and acupuncture; pooled weighted mean difference
was −0.93 [95% CI −8.51] [sic]). They conclude there is insufficient good-quality data with which to come to a firm
International Journal of General Medicine 2013:6submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress
Dovepress
738
Kumar et al
decision on the efficacy of massage therapy in the treatment
of chronic low back pain.
Therefore, to summarize this research evidence, massage
therapy may offer some positive benefits in terms of reduction
in pain and disability in the short term, when compared to
relaxation. However, this was not the case when massage
therapy was compared with spinal manipulative therapy.
There is equivocal evidence of effectiveness of massage
therapy when compared to mobilization and usual care
(advice and exercise).
Category three: the effectiveness of massage therapy for mixed acute, subacute, and chronic nonspecific low back pain in adults Bronfor t et al 16 identif ied three RCTs, comprising
197 participants, which investigated spinal manipulation
therapy and various forms of massage therapy for the treat-
ment of both acute and chronic low back pain. They found
evidence to suggest that spinal manipulative therapy may be
more effective in reducing pain (nonsignificant findings) than
placebo massage, and a single session of spinal manipula-
tive therapy resulted in fewer sick-leave days than friction
massage. The final study found a nonsignificant advantage
of spinal manipulation therapy over myofascial therapy for
pain and disability reduction. All three studies had low- to
moderate-quality scores (13%, 25%, and 63%).
Brosseau et al20 identified eleven trials regarding mas-
sage for the treatment of acute, subacute, or chronic non-
specific low back pain. However, the authors reported on
only four trials, comprising 954 participants, which scored
3 or more on the Jadad scale21 (high methodological qual-
ity). They found statistically significant results in favour of
pain reduction in comparison to sham laser treatment but
only “clinically important”20 results in decreased disability
and symptoms for massage (structural, therapeutic, and
relaxation massage) in comparison to usual care and sham
laser treatment.
Lewis and Johnson10 identified seven relevant studies,
with a total of 787 participants. These studies were critically
appraised using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
methodological scale.22 The included studies scored between
3 and 7 out of a maximum score of 9. The Centre for Reviews
and Dissemination methodological scale was modified to a
maximum score of 9 (rather than the original maximum score
of 11) by Lewis and Johnson, as they recognized the inability
to blind practitioners and clients for this type of intervention
(loss of 2 points).10 There was considerable variation between
the studies, limiting the ability to compare the findings.
Therapeutic massage resulted in better pain and disability
scores by end of trial than sham laser, and was found to be
superior to self-care, acupuncture, exercise and education,
and muscle relaxation. Soft tissue manipulation (six sessions,
over a 1-month period) was more effective in terms of reduc-
ing disability and pain than exercise with posture education
or treatment with sham laser for people with subacute low
back pain. Massage (three 30-minute sessions per week for
3 weeks) was better than mental relaxation, while massage
(two 30-minute sessions per week for 5 weeks) reduced pain
in comparison with standard medical care (pharmacology
and chronic pain education). The authors concluded that, as
therapeutic massage was superior to comparison groups in
only three of seven studies, the effectiveness of massage to
relieve low back pain was inconclusive.
Lin et al23 identified one RCT with low risk of bias,
comprising 579 participants, which investigated the cost-
effectiveness of massage therapy as compared to general
practice (GP) health care. This study indicated that massage
alone was less effective and more expensive from the health
care sector’s perspective than GP care. However, when exer-
cise and behavioral counseling were added to massage, it was
more cost-effective than GP care.
Therefore, to summarize this research evidence, mas-
sage therapy may offer some positive benefits in terms of
reduction in pain and disability in the short term, when
compared to sham and placebo interventions. However, this
was not the case when massage therapy was compared with
spinal manipulative therapy. There is equivocal evidence
of effectiveness of massage therapy when compared to
acupuncture, exercise and education, and relaxation. There
is limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of massage
therapy when compared to other standard interventions for
nonspecific low back pain.
Discussion The aim of this umbrella review was to provide a synthesis
and judgment of best available research evidence related to
the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of
nonspecific low back pain. With increasing consumption of
CAM therapies, in an era of evidence-based practice, it is
only appropriate to investigate the evidence underpinning
the effectiveness of CAM therapies.
The systematic reviews included in this umbrella review
ranged from poor methodological quality10,16 to moderate,18,19
good,4,15,20 or excellent methodological quality.17,23 Therefore,
we recommend that caution be used when interpreting the
conclusions of these reviews, as the primary research relat-
International Journal of General Medicine 2013:6 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress
Dovepress
739
Effectiveness of massage therapy for nonspecific low back pain
ing to massage and non-specific low back pain, for the most
part, had a high risk of bias.
While there are a number of systematic reviews investi-
gating the effectiveness of massage therapy for nonspecific
low back pain, there is mixed and conflicting evidence on
outcomes from massage therapy. There is emerging evi-
dence that massage may be an effective treatment option
for treating low back pain when compared to placebo or
sham therapies and other interventions (such as relaxation
techniques) in improving short-term pain and disability. The
role of massage as a moderately effective nonpharmacologi-
cal treatment option has also been discussed by Chou et al24
and Imamura et al8 as a recommendation for chronic low
back pain therapy.
The evidence is contradictory for the effectiveness of
massage when compared to other popular treatment options,
such as standard medical care, mobilization, and acupuncture
in improving short-term pain and disability. Spinal manipula-
tive therapy seems consistently to provide better outcomes
when compared to massage therapy. There was no evidence
found for the long-term (beyond 6 months) effectiveness of
massage therapy.
The methodology underpinning the primary research,
which informed the systematic reviews, was, for the most
part, classified as weak. This is a significant issue that has
plagued the evidence base for massage therapy and has
also been acknowledged by other researchers (Airaksinen
et al25). The methodological issues reported by the system-
atic reviews include small sample size, lack of adequate
blinding of assessors, and varied intervention parameters
and outcome measures. This is demonstrated by the finding
that only one of the nine included systematic reviews was
able to undertake a meta-analysis of the included primary
literature.18 This was due to the variability in the description
of intervention parameters, operational definition of massage
therapy, comparators, and outcome measures utilized in the
remaining eight included systematic reviews.
The poor quality of the primary research evidence base
may be partly due to the conflict between what occurs in
clinical practice and rigorous standards required within
research settings. In a clinical practice context, massage
therapy may often be offered as a “package of care” in
addition to advice and education and using a combination
of modalities. However, in a research context, a package
of care is rarely offered in order to avoid cointervention
bias. Therefore, the primary research undertaken may
not truly capture and replicate what occurs in a clinical
practice context. This is a challenge and a limitation when
undertaking and interpreting findings of research evidence
for massage therapy.
Limitations of this review This umbrella review, like any other research, has its limita-
tions, and these need to be acknowledged in the context of the
findings. Firstly, while all attempts were made to interrogate
and access all relevant literature, it is possible some publica-
tions may have been missed in the search process. This is
especially relevant for CAM topics, as publications in other
languages, originating from countries where English may not
be a first language, such as the People’s Republic of China
and India, may not be captured in Western databases. Sec-
ondly, as there was a lack of clarity around the type, use, and
comparators of massage therapy in these systematic reviews,
the heterogeneity made it impossible to combine the findings
across all included systematic reviews and come to an absolute
conclusion. Thirdly, one of the recurrent issues when inter-
preting these systematic review findings was the imperfect
primary research designs included in these reviews. Several of
the primary research studies had poor evaluations with several
methodological issues (such as lack of adequate descriptions
of interventions and poor long-term follow-up).
Conclusion Implications for practice The findings of this umbrella review indicate that massage
may be an effective treatment option in the short term when
compared to placebo and some active treatment options
(such as relaxation). However, there are conflicting and
contradictory findings for the effectiveness of massage
therapy for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain
when compared against other manual therapies (such as
mobilization, standard medical care, and acupuncture).
Given that there were no reported side effects or adverse
events as a result of massage therapy, it may be considered
as a viable treatment option, provided that cost implications
are considered.
The diversity and complexity of the evidence base for
the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of
nonspecific low back pain underscores the importance of
a collaborative, patient-centered decision making process
between the patient and the health professional, which is
informed by best available evidence. In addition to this,
sound clinical reasoning, expertise of individual health pro-
fessionals, and health outcome data, collected using rigorous
outcome measures, should underpin the integration of the
findings from this umbrella review into clinical practice.
International Journal of General Medicine 2013:6submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress
Dovepress
740
Kumar et al
These processes build on the philosophy of evidence-based
practice in health care.
Implications for research Massage therapy seems to be a well-researched field of
therapy within CAMs. However, there are key knowledge
gaps in the literature that need to be addressed. Further
research is required to unpack the “black box” of massage
therapy, as there is ambiguity on the operational definition
of massage therapy. Various systematic reviews defined
and searched for many different types and modalities of
massage, with some discussing massage techniques as a
separate modality and some considering massage therapy
as part of a suite of interventions. This variability extended
to massage therapy parameters such as dosage, duration,
and intervention protocols. There is a scarcity of data on
the cost-effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment
of nonspecific low back pain. As there is currently a dearth
of high-quality/low risk of bias primary research on the
effectiveness of massage for the treatment of nonspecific
low back pain, further research, such as RCTs, with sound
methodological rigor, are required. While there are a number
of systematic reviews investigating the effectiveness of mas-
sage therapy for nonspecific low back pain, the mechanism
underlying its action remains elusive. While physiological
and psychotherapeutic models have been proposed, the pre-
cise mechanism of action continues to be debated, requiring
ongoing further research.
Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge Ms Khushnum Pastakia
for her assistance and feedback during the preparation of
this manuscript.
Disclosure The funding for the conduct of this umbrella review was pro-
vided by the Australian Association of Massage Therapists.
The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this
work.
References 1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer
health system. Institute of Medicine; 2000. Available from: http://wps. pearsoneducation.nl/wps/media/objects/13902/14236351/H%2007_ To%20Err%20Is%20Human.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2012.
2. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312: 71–72.
3. Furlan AD, Brosseau L, Imamura M, Irvin E. Massage for low-back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila PA 1976). 2002;27:1896–1910.
4. Furlan AD, Yazdi F, Tsertsvadze A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of selected complementary and alternative medicine for neck and low-back pain. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012:953139.
5. Furlan A, Imamura M, Dryden T, Irvin E. Massage for low back pain: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(16):1669–1684.
6. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999;354:581–585.
7. Hestbaek L, Leboeuf-Yde C, Manniche C. Low back pain: what is the long-term course? A review of studies of general populations. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:149–165.
8. Imamura M, Furlan AD, Dryden T, Irvin E. Evidence-informed man- agement of chronic low back pain with massage. Spine J. 2008;8(1): 121–133.
9. MacLennan AH, Myers SP, Taylor AW. The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: costs and beliefs in 2004. Med J Aust. 2006;184:27–31.
10. Lewis M, Johnson MI. The clinical effectiveness of therapeutic massage for musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2006;92:146–158.
11. Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(34).
12. Moyer CA, Rounds J, Hannum JW. A meta-analysis of massage therapy research. Psychol Bull. 2004;130:3–18.
13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.
14. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. Systematic Review Critical Appraisal Sheet. Oxford: University of Oxford; 2005. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1157. Accessed November 16, 2012.
15. Pengel HM, Maher CG, Refshauge KM. Systematic review of conserva- tive interventions for subacute low back pain. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16: 811–820.
16. Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans RL, Bouter LM. Efficacy of spinal manipu- lation and mobilization for low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Spine J. 2004;4:335–356.
17. Ernst E, Posadzki P, Lee MS. Reflexology: an update of a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Maturitas.2011;68:116–120.
18. Kim YC, Lee MS, Park ES, Lew JH, Lee BJ. Acupressure for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain conditions: a systematic review. J Musculoskelet Pain. 2012;20:116–121.
19. van Middelkoop M, Rubinstein SM, Kuijpers T, et al. A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:19–39.
20. Brosseau L, Wells GA, Poitras S, et al. Ottawa Panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on therapeutic massage for low back pain. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012;16:424–455.
21. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds JM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.
22. Khan KS, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J, editors. The NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2nd ed. CRD Report No. 4. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2000.
23. Lin CW, Haas M, Maher CG, Machado LA, van Tulder MW. Cost- effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for low back pain: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:1024–1038.
International Journal of General Medicine
Publish your work in this journal
Submit your manuscript here: http://www.dovepress.com/international-journal-of-general-medicine-journal
The International Journal of General Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed open-access journal that focuses on general and internal medicine, pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, monitoring and treat- ment protocols. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research and clinical studies across all disease areas.
A key focus is the elucidation of disease processes and management protocols resulting in improved outcomes for the patient.The manu- script management system is completely online and includes a very quick and fair peer-review system. Visit http://www.dovepress.com/ testimonials.php to read real quotes from published authors.
International Journal of General Medicine 2013:6 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress
Dovepress
Dovepress
741
Effectiveness of massage therapy for nonspecific low back pain
24. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al; Clinical Efficacy Assessment Sub- committee of the American College of Physicians; American College of Physicians; American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(7):478–491.
25. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, et al; COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for Chronic Low Back Pain. Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006;15 Suppl 2:S192–S300.
- Publication Info 2:
- Nimber of times reviewed:
