A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy, Cost-Effectiveness, and Safety of Selected Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Neck and Low-Back Pain
Table 9
Summary of findings of massage for neck pain (only pain and functional outcomes).
Duration and cause of pain
Outcomes
GRADE*
Findings
Massage versus no treatment
Acute/subacute or mixed (specific, nonspecific)
NA
Insufficient No trial
NA
Chronic specific
Disability score (NPQ)
Low Design: RCT ROB: Medium Consistency: NA (only 1 trial) Directness: yes
In one trial [148] massage was significantly better than “no treatment” immediately after treatment (mean NPQ score: versus ).
Low Design: RCT ROB: Medium Consistency: NA (only 1 trial) Directness: yes
In one trial [150] both classical and modified massage techniques (strain/counter-strain) were significantly better than “no treatment” immediately after treatment (). There was no significant difference between modified and classical massage (mean difference in VAS score: 0.5, 95% CI: −1.0, 1.1). Classical versus “no treatment” (2.7, 95% CI: 1.6, 3.7). Modified versus “no treatment” (2.6, 95% CI: 1.5, 3.7).
Massage versus placebo
Acute/subacute specific
NA
Insufficient No trial
NA
Acute/subacute nonspecific
≥2-point decrease on pain score (NRS-11)
Low Design: RCT ROB: Medium Consistency: NA (only 1 trial) Directness: yes
In one trial [151] massage was significantly better than placebo immediately after treatment (OR: 7.4, 95% CI: 1.22, 45.02).
Chronic specific
Pain intensity score (VAS)
Low Design: RCT ROB: High Consistency: NA (only 1 trial) Directness: yes
In one trial [209] massage was significantly better than placebo (sham laser) immediately or short-term after treatment (VAS: 7.89 versus 17.28, ).
