| F1 | Refid | Quick Author | Author | Title | Publication Date | Periodical | F8 | Volume | F10 | Issue | F12 | Page Start-End | Group | F15 | Publication Data | Condition | Condition (to hide) | Outcome Measures | cleaned up results | Outcome Measures_ | Total Participants | Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) | Abstract | Keywords | Power | Power1 | Provider Type | Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) | # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ | double check # assign | Intervention Description: Dosages | Intervention Description: Dosages1 | *Meta-Analysis | Relevant Results _ | Conclusions | Adverse Events | PubMed Link |
| 31 |
1500 |
Hsieh, 2002* |
C. J. Hsieh, A. H. Adams, J. Tobis, C. Hong, C. Danielson, K. Platt, F. Hoehler, S. Reinsch and A. Rubel |
Effectiveness of four conservative treatments for subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial |
2002 |
Spine |
vol |
27 |
vol 27 |
11 |
pages |
1142-1148 |
Group 1 |
pages 1142-1148 |
Spine, vol 27: 11, pages 1142-1148 |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Low back pain |
200ac (131M/69F) participants with low back pain (mean age = 48 ± 14.1 yrs) |
|
Visual Analog Scale (pain)
Roland Morris Activity Scale (activity)
Palpation for active Trigger Point (activity)
Palpation for tenderness (tenderness)
Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey (general health status)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Short Form |
Pain: Visual Analog Scale;
Activity: Roland Morris Activity Scale, Palpation for active Trigger Point, Palpation for tenderness;
Quality of Life: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey;
Mood: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Short |
200 |
2-Acceptable |
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized assessor-blinded clinical trial was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relative effectiveness of three manual treatments and back school for patients with subacute low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Literature comparing the relative effectiveness of specific therapies for low back pain is limited. METHODS: Among the 5925 inquiries 206 patients met the specific admission criteria and 200 patients randomly received one of four treatments for 3 weeks: back school joint manipulation myofascial therapy and combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy. These patients received assessments at baseline after 3 weeks of therapy and 6 months after the completion of therapy. The primary outcomes were evaluated using visual analog pain scales and Roland-Morris activity scales. RESULTS: All four groups showed significant improvement in pain and activity scores after 3 weeks of care but did not show further significant improvement at the 6-month follow-up assessment. No statistically significant between-group differences were found either at the 3-week or 6-month reassessments. CONCLUSIONS: For subacute low back pain combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy was as effective as joint manipulation or myofascial therapy alone. Additionally back school was as effective as three manual treatments. |
Low Back Pain -- Therapy |
Yes, power achieved |
Yes, Using the method described by Lachin16 for the 3-week VAS data, assuming a two sided alpha level of 0.05, a sample size of 46 per group, and a standard deviation of 1.65 (actual standard deviations ranged from 1.28 to 1.93), the power to detect a dif |
Physical therapist, chiropractor |
Myofascial Release: 50 (2%);
Joint Mobilization (Active Control): 47 (4%);
Myofascial Release + Joint Mobilization: 52 (8%);
Back School: 47 (11%).
|
50 (2%);
47 (4%);
52 (8%);
47 (11%). |
|
Myofascial Release: 9 x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
Joint Mobilization (Active Control): ND x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
Myofascial Release + Joint Mobilization: ND x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
Back School: 3 x 20-30 mins, 1x/w, 3w + ND.
|
9 x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
ND x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
ND x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
3 x 20-30 mins, 1x/w, 3w + ND. |
Yes |
*Visual Analog Scale (pain): p = 0.03 (between groups) (combined treatment / Myofascial Release) at 3w, Effect Size = -0.10, Active Control, pre / post, Effect Size = 0.20, Active Control, 6 mos FU; Roland Morris Activity Scale (activity): p = 0.02 (between groups) (combined treatment / Myofascial Release) at 3w, p = 0.053 (between groups) (Joint Mobilization / Myofascial Release) at 6 mos; Palpation for active Trigger Point (activity): p = Not Described; Palpation for tenderness (tenderness): p = Not Described; Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey (general health status): p = Not Described; Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Short Form: (personality): p = Not Described. |
Massage effective for:
Pain,
Activity.
|
At the exit interviews, 23 patients reported adverse effects from the treatments: 7 in the combined group, 6 in the joint manipulation group, 4 in the myofascial therapy group, and 6 in the back school group. These adverse effects were mostly transient ex |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=hsieh++Effectiveness+of+four+conservative+treatments+for+subacute+low+back+pain%3A+a+randomized+clinical+trial |
| F1 |
31 |
| Refid |
1500 |
| Quick Author |
Hsieh, 2002* |
| Author |
C. J. Hsieh, A. H. Adams, J. Tobis, C. Hong, C. Danielson, K. Platt, F. Hoehler, S. Reinsch and A. Rubel |
| Title |
Effectiveness of four conservative treatments for subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial |
| Publication Date |
2002 |
| Periodical |
Spine |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
27 |
| F10 |
vol 27 |
| Issue |
11 |
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
1142-1148 |
| Group |
Group 1 |
| F15 |
pages 1142-1148 |
| Publication Data |
Spine, vol 27: 11, pages 1142-1148 |
| Condition |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Low back pain |
| Condition (to hide) |
200ac (131M/69F) participants with low back pain (mean age = 48 ± 14.1 yrs) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Visual Analog Scale (pain)
Roland Morris Activity Scale (activity)
Palpation for active Trigger Point (activity)
Palpation for tenderness (tenderness)
Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey (general health status)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Short Form |
| Outcome Measures_ |
Pain: Visual Analog Scale;
Activity: Roland Morris Activity Scale, Palpation for active Trigger Point, Palpation for tenderness;
Quality of Life: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey;
Mood: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Short |
| Total Participants |
200 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
2-Acceptable |
| Abstract |
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized assessor-blinded clinical trial was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relative effectiveness of three manual treatments and back school for patients with subacute low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Literature comparing the relative effectiveness of specific therapies for low back pain is limited. METHODS: Among the 5925 inquiries 206 patients met the specific admission criteria and 200 patients randomly received one of four treatments for 3 weeks: back school joint manipulation myofascial therapy and combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy. These patients received assessments at baseline after 3 weeks of therapy and 6 months after the completion of therapy. The primary outcomes were evaluated using visual analog pain scales and Roland-Morris activity scales. RESULTS: All four groups showed significant improvement in pain and activity scores after 3 weeks of care but did not show further significant improvement at the 6-month follow-up assessment. No statistically significant between-group differences were found either at the 3-week or 6-month reassessments. CONCLUSIONS: For subacute low back pain combined joint manipulation and myofascial therapy was as effective as joint manipulation or myofascial therapy alone. Additionally back school was as effective as three manual treatments. |
| Keywords |
Low Back Pain -- Therapy |
| Power |
Yes, power achieved |
| Power1 |
Yes, Using the method described by Lachin16 for the 3-week VAS data, assuming a two sided alpha level of 0.05, a sample size of 46 per group, and a standard deviation of 1.65 (actual standard deviations ranged from 1.28 to 1.93), the power to detect a dif |
| Provider Type |
Physical therapist, chiropractor |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Myofascial Release: 50 (2%);
Joint Mobilization (Active Control): 47 (4%);
Myofascial Release + Joint Mobilization: 52 (8%);
Back School: 47 (11%).
|
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
50 (2%);
47 (4%);
52 (8%);
47 (11%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Myofascial Release: 9 x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
Joint Mobilization (Active Control): ND x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
Myofascial Release + Joint Mobilization: ND x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
Back School: 3 x 20-30 mins, 1x/w, 3w + ND.
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
9 x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
ND x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
ND x ND, 3x/w, 3w + ND;
3 x 20-30 mins, 1x/w, 3w + ND. |
| *Meta-Analysis |
Yes |
| Relevant Results _ |
*Visual Analog Scale (pain): p = 0.03 (between groups) (combined treatment / Myofascial Release) at 3w, Effect Size = -0.10, Active Control, pre / post, Effect Size = 0.20, Active Control, 6 mos FU; Roland Morris Activity Scale (activity): p = 0.02 (between groups) (combined treatment / Myofascial Release) at 3w, p = 0.053 (between groups) (Joint Mobilization / Myofascial Release) at 6 mos; Palpation for active Trigger Point (activity): p = Not Described; Palpation for tenderness (tenderness): p = Not Described; Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey (general health status): p = Not Described; Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Short Form: (personality): p = Not Described. |
| Conclusions |
Massage effective for:
Pain,
Activity.
|
| Adverse Events |
At the exit interviews, 23 patients reported adverse effects from the treatments: 7 in the combined group, 6 in the joint manipulation group, 4 in the myofascial therapy group, and 6 in the back school group. These adverse effects were mostly transient ex |
| PubMed Link |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=hsieh++Effectiveness+of+four+conservative+treatments+for+subacute+low+back+pain%3A+a+randomized+clinical+trial |
|
| 32 |
1565 |
Irnich, 2001* |
D. Irnich, N. Behrens, H. Molzen, A. Konig, J. Gleditsch, M. Krauss, M. Natalis, E. Senn, A. Beyer and P. Schops |
Randomised trial of acupuncture compared with conventional massage and "sham" laser acupuncture for treatment of chronic neck pain |
2001 |
Bmj |
vol |
322 |
vol 322 |
7302 |
pages |
1574-8 |
Group 1 |
pages 1574-8 |
Bmj, vol 322: 7302, pages 1574-8 |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic neck pain |
177ac (60M/117F) participants with chronic neck pain (mean age = 52.0 ± 12.7 yrs) |
|
Visual Analog Scale (pain related to direction)
Visual Analog Scale (pain related to motion)
D Ultrasound real time motion analyzer (Range of Motion)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (role physical, pain index)
Short Form-36 Health Survey health survey (global complaints)
Digital Pressure Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold)
|
Pain: Visual Analog Scale, Short Form-36 Health Survey;
Activity: D Ultrasound real time motion analyzer;
Quality of Life: Short Form-36 Health Survey health survey;
Pain Pressure Threshold: Digital Pressure Algometer.
|
177 |
2-Acceptable |
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of acupuncture and conventional massage for the treatment of chronic neck pain. DESIGN: Prospective randomised placebo controlled trial. Setting: Three outpatient departments in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 177 patients aged 18-85 years with chronic neck pain. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated to five treatments over three weeks with acupuncture (56) massage (60) or "sham" laser acupuncture (61). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure: maximum pain related to motion (visual analogue scale) irrespective of direction of movement one week after treatment. Secondary outcome measures: range of motion (3D ultrasound real time motion analyser) pain related to movement in six directions (visual analogue scale) pressure pain threshold (pressure algometer) changes of spontaneous pain motion related pain global complaints (seven point scale) and quality of life (SF-36). Assessments were performed before during and one week and three months after treatment. Patients'' beliefs in treatment were assessed. RESULTS: One week after five treatments the acupuncture group showed a significantly greater improvement in motion related pain compared with massage (difference 24.22 (95% confidence interval 16.5 to 31.9) P=0.0052) but not compared with sham laser (17.28 (10.0 to 24.6) P=0.327). Differences between acupuncture and massage or sham laser were greater in the subgroup who had had pain for longer than five years (n=75) and in patients with myofascial pain syndrome (n=129). The acupuncture group had the best results in most secondary outcome measures. There were no differences in patients'' beliefs in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture is an effective short term treatment for patients with chronic neck pain but there is only limited evidence for long term effects after five treatments. |
Acupuncture Analgesia |
Yes, power achieved |
Yes, Our intention was to analyse 52 patients per group, which, given a standard deviation of 18, would have provided 80% power at the 5% significance level to detect a 10 point difference in the mean change of motion related pain. This calculation was ba |
Physiotherapist |
Massage: 60 (2%);
Acupuncture (Active Control): 56 (13%);
Sham Laser Acupuncture: 61 (7%). |
60 (2%);
56 (13%);
61 (7%). |
|
Massage: 5 x 30 mins, ND, 3w + ND;
Acupuncture (Active Control): ND x 30 mins, ND, ND + ND;
Sham Laser Acupuncture: ND x 30 mins, ND, ND + ND. |
5 x 30 mins, ND, 3w + ND;
ND x 30 mins, ND, ND + ND;
ND x 30 mins, ND, ND + ND. |
Yes |
*Visual Analog Scale (pain related to direction): p < 0.001 (between groups) (Active Control / massage) at 1w, p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / sham) at all time points, Effect Size = -0.73, Active Control, pre / post. Effect Size = -0.19, Sham, pre / post; Visual Analog Scale (pain related to motion): p = 0.005 (between groups) (Active Control / massage), p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / sham) at 1w; *D Ultrasound real time motion analyzer (Range of Motion): p = 0.03 (between groups) (Active Control/ massage) at 1w, p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / sham) at all time points, Effect Size = -0.43, Active Control, pre / post. Effect Size = -0.27, Sham, pre / post; Short Form-36 Health Survey (role physical, pain index): p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / massage), (Active Control / sham) at 1w; Short Form-36 Health Survey health survey (global complaints): p < 0.05 (between groups) (Active Control/ massage), (Active Control / sham) at 1w, p = 0.02 (between groups) (Active Control / massage), p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / sham) at 3 mos FU; Digital Pressure Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold): p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / massage), (Active Control / sham) at 1w. |
No relevant significant results. |
Seventeen (33%) participants reported mild reactions after needle insertion during acupuncture, mainly slight pain or vegetative reactions (sweating, low blood pressure). After a short rest they agreed to continue the treatment. Similar mild reactions wer |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11431299 |
| F1 |
32 |
| Refid |
1565 |
| Quick Author |
Irnich, 2001* |
| Author |
D. Irnich, N. Behrens, H. Molzen, A. Konig, J. Gleditsch, M. Krauss, M. Natalis, E. Senn, A. Beyer and P. Schops |
| Title |
Randomised trial of acupuncture compared with conventional massage and "sham" laser acupuncture for treatment of chronic neck pain |
| Publication Date |
2001 |
| Periodical |
Bmj |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
322 |
| F10 |
vol 322 |
| Issue |
7302 |
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
1574-8 |
| Group |
Group 1 |
| F15 |
pages 1574-8 |
| Publication Data |
Bmj, vol 322: 7302, pages 1574-8 |
| Condition |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic neck pain |
| Condition (to hide) |
177ac (60M/117F) participants with chronic neck pain (mean age = 52.0 ± 12.7 yrs) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Visual Analog Scale (pain related to direction)
Visual Analog Scale (pain related to motion)
D Ultrasound real time motion analyzer (Range of Motion)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (role physical, pain index)
Short Form-36 Health Survey health survey (global complaints)
Digital Pressure Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold)
|
| Outcome Measures_ |
Pain: Visual Analog Scale, Short Form-36 Health Survey;
Activity: D Ultrasound real time motion analyzer;
Quality of Life: Short Form-36 Health Survey health survey;
Pain Pressure Threshold: Digital Pressure Algometer.
|
| Total Participants |
177 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
2-Acceptable |
| Abstract |
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of acupuncture and conventional massage for the treatment of chronic neck pain. DESIGN: Prospective randomised placebo controlled trial. Setting: Three outpatient departments in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 177 patients aged 18-85 years with chronic neck pain. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated to five treatments over three weeks with acupuncture (56) massage (60) or "sham" laser acupuncture (61). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure: maximum pain related to motion (visual analogue scale) irrespective of direction of movement one week after treatment. Secondary outcome measures: range of motion (3D ultrasound real time motion analyser) pain related to movement in six directions (visual analogue scale) pressure pain threshold (pressure algometer) changes of spontaneous pain motion related pain global complaints (seven point scale) and quality of life (SF-36). Assessments were performed before during and one week and three months after treatment. Patients'' beliefs in treatment were assessed. RESULTS: One week after five treatments the acupuncture group showed a significantly greater improvement in motion related pain compared with massage (difference 24.22 (95% confidence interval 16.5 to 31.9) P=0.0052) but not compared with sham laser (17.28 (10.0 to 24.6) P=0.327). Differences between acupuncture and massage or sham laser were greater in the subgroup who had had pain for longer than five years (n=75) and in patients with myofascial pain syndrome (n=129). The acupuncture group had the best results in most secondary outcome measures. There were no differences in patients'' beliefs in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture is an effective short term treatment for patients with chronic neck pain but there is only limited evidence for long term effects after five treatments. |
| Keywords |
Acupuncture Analgesia |
| Power |
Yes, power achieved |
| Power1 |
Yes, Our intention was to analyse 52 patients per group, which, given a standard deviation of 18, would have provided 80% power at the 5% significance level to detect a 10 point difference in the mean change of motion related pain. This calculation was ba |
| Provider Type |
Physiotherapist |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Massage: 60 (2%);
Acupuncture (Active Control): 56 (13%);
Sham Laser Acupuncture: 61 (7%). |
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
60 (2%);
56 (13%);
61 (7%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Massage: 5 x 30 mins, ND, 3w + ND;
Acupuncture (Active Control): ND x 30 mins, ND, ND + ND;
Sham Laser Acupuncture: ND x 30 mins, ND, ND + ND. |
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
5 x 30 mins, ND, 3w + ND;
ND x 30 mins, ND, ND + ND;
ND x 30 mins, ND, ND + ND. |
| *Meta-Analysis |
Yes |
| Relevant Results _ |
*Visual Analog Scale (pain related to direction): p < 0.001 (between groups) (Active Control / massage) at 1w, p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / sham) at all time points, Effect Size = -0.73, Active Control, pre / post. Effect Size = -0.19, Sham, pre / post; Visual Analog Scale (pain related to motion): p = 0.005 (between groups) (Active Control / massage), p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / sham) at 1w; *D Ultrasound real time motion analyzer (Range of Motion): p = 0.03 (between groups) (Active Control/ massage) at 1w, p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / sham) at all time points, Effect Size = -0.43, Active Control, pre / post. Effect Size = -0.27, Sham, pre / post; Short Form-36 Health Survey (role physical, pain index): p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / massage), (Active Control / sham) at 1w; Short Form-36 Health Survey health survey (global complaints): p < 0.05 (between groups) (Active Control/ massage), (Active Control / sham) at 1w, p = 0.02 (between groups) (Active Control / massage), p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / sham) at 3 mos FU; Digital Pressure Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold): p = Not Significant (between groups) (Active Control / massage), (Active Control / sham) at 1w. |
| Conclusions |
No relevant significant results. |
| Adverse Events |
Seventeen (33%) participants reported mild reactions after needle insertion during acupuncture, mainly slight pain or vegetative reactions (sweating, low blood pressure). After a short rest they agreed to continue the treatment. Similar mild reactions wer |
| PubMed Link |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11431299 |
|
| 33 |
1660 |
Kalamir, 2010* |
A. Kalamir, H. Pollard, A. Vitiello and R. Bonello |
Intra-oral myofascial therapy for chronic myogenous temporomandibular disorders: A randomized, controlled pilot study |
2010 |
Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy |
vol |
18 |
vol 18 |
3 |
pages |
139-146 |
Group 1 |
pages 139-146 |
Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy, vol 18: 3, pages 139-146 |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Periauricular pain |
30c (13M/17F) participants with periauricular pain (mean age = 33 ± 8.2 yrs) |
|
Graded Chronic Pain Scale (resting pain)
Graded Chronic Pain Scale (maximum opening pain)
Graded Chronic Pain Scale (clenching pain)
Inter-incisal Opening Range (activity)
|
Pain: Graded Chronic Pain Scale;
Activity: Inter-incisal Opening Range.
|
30 |
2-Acceptable |
Objectives: Studies investigating the efficacy of intra-oral myofascial therapies (IMT) for chronic temporomandibular disorder (TMD) are rare. The objective of this randomized controlled pilot study was to compare the effects of IMT and the addition of self-care and education over 6 months on four common TMD outcome measures: inter-incisal opening range jaw pain at rest jaw pain upon opening and jaw pain upon clenching. Participants: Thirty myogenous TMD participants between the ages of 18 and 50 years experiencing chronic jaw pain of longer than 3-month duration were recruited for the present study. Intervention: Included patients were randomized into one of three groups: (1) IMT consisting of two treatment interventions per week for 5 weeks; (2) IMT plus ''self-care'' involving education and exercises; and (3) wait list control. Main outcome measures: Range of motion findings were measured in millimetres by vernier calipers and pain scores were quantified using an 11-point self-reported graded chronic pain scale. Measurements were taken at baseline 6 weeks post-treatment and 6 months post-treatment. Results: The results showed statistically significant differences in resting opening and clenching pain and opening range scores (P<0.05) in both treatment groups compared to control at 6 months. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups during the course of the trial. Conclusions: This study suggests that IMT alone or with the addition of self-care may be of some benefit in the management of chronic TMD over the short-medium term. A larger scale study over a longer term (1-2 years) may be of further value. (copyright) 2010 Maney Publishing. |
Adult |
Not Described |
ND |
Practitioner |
Intra-oral Myofascial Therapy: 10 (0%);
Intra-oral Myofascial Therapy + education and self-care: 10 (0%);
Wait List Control (No Treatment): 10 (0%).
|
10 (0%);
10 (0%);
10 (10%). |
|
Intra-oral Myofascial Therapy: 10 x 15 mins, 2x/w, 5w + ND;
Intra-oral Myofascial Therapy + education and self-care: ND + mandibular exercises 2x/d;
Wait List Control (No Treatment): ND.
|
10 x 15 mins, 2x/w, 5w + ND;
ND + mandibular exercises 2x/d;
ND. |
Yes |
*Graded Chronic Pain Scale (resting pain): p = Not Significant (between groups) (all groups) at 6w, p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6 mos FU, Effect Size = -0.23, Active Control pre / post; Graded Chronic Pain Scale (maximum opening pain): p = Not Significant (between groups) (all groups) at 6w, p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6 mos FU; Graded Chronic Pain Scale (clenching pain): p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6w, p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6 mos FU; Inter-incisal Opening Range (activity): p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6w, p = .01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6 mos FU. |
Massage effective for:
Pain,
Activity. |
Authors report NO AEs occurred |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=kalamir++Intra-oral+myofascial+therapy+for+chronic+myogenous+temporomandibular+disorders%3A+A+randomized%2C+controlled+pilot+study |
| F1 |
33 |
| Refid |
1660 |
| Quick Author |
Kalamir, 2010* |
| Author |
A. Kalamir, H. Pollard, A. Vitiello and R. Bonello |
| Title |
Intra-oral myofascial therapy for chronic myogenous temporomandibular disorders: A randomized, controlled pilot study |
| Publication Date |
2010 |
| Periodical |
Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
18 |
| F10 |
vol 18 |
| Issue |
3 |
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
139-146 |
| Group |
Group 1 |
| F15 |
pages 139-146 |
| Publication Data |
Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy, vol 18: 3, pages 139-146 |
| Condition |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Periauricular pain |
| Condition (to hide) |
30c (13M/17F) participants with periauricular pain (mean age = 33 ± 8.2 yrs) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Graded Chronic Pain Scale (resting pain)
Graded Chronic Pain Scale (maximum opening pain)
Graded Chronic Pain Scale (clenching pain)
Inter-incisal Opening Range (activity)
|
| Outcome Measures_ |
Pain: Graded Chronic Pain Scale;
Activity: Inter-incisal Opening Range.
|
| Total Participants |
30 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
2-Acceptable |
| Abstract |
Objectives: Studies investigating the efficacy of intra-oral myofascial therapies (IMT) for chronic temporomandibular disorder (TMD) are rare. The objective of this randomized controlled pilot study was to compare the effects of IMT and the addition of self-care and education over 6 months on four common TMD outcome measures: inter-incisal opening range jaw pain at rest jaw pain upon opening and jaw pain upon clenching. Participants: Thirty myogenous TMD participants between the ages of 18 and 50 years experiencing chronic jaw pain of longer than 3-month duration were recruited for the present study. Intervention: Included patients were randomized into one of three groups: (1) IMT consisting of two treatment interventions per week for 5 weeks; (2) IMT plus ''self-care'' involving education and exercises; and (3) wait list control. Main outcome measures: Range of motion findings were measured in millimetres by vernier calipers and pain scores were quantified using an 11-point self-reported graded chronic pain scale. Measurements were taken at baseline 6 weeks post-treatment and 6 months post-treatment. Results: The results showed statistically significant differences in resting opening and clenching pain and opening range scores (P<0.05) in both treatment groups compared to control at 6 months. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups during the course of the trial. Conclusions: This study suggests that IMT alone or with the addition of self-care may be of some benefit in the management of chronic TMD over the short-medium term. A larger scale study over a longer term (1-2 years) may be of further value. (copyright) 2010 Maney Publishing. |
| Keywords |
Adult |
| Power |
Not Described |
| Power1 |
ND |
| Provider Type |
Practitioner |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Intra-oral Myofascial Therapy: 10 (0%);
Intra-oral Myofascial Therapy + education and self-care: 10 (0%);
Wait List Control (No Treatment): 10 (0%).
|
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
10 (0%);
10 (0%);
10 (10%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Intra-oral Myofascial Therapy: 10 x 15 mins, 2x/w, 5w + ND;
Intra-oral Myofascial Therapy + education and self-care: ND + mandibular exercises 2x/d;
Wait List Control (No Treatment): ND.
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
10 x 15 mins, 2x/w, 5w + ND;
ND + mandibular exercises 2x/d;
ND. |
| *Meta-Analysis |
Yes |
| Relevant Results _ |
*Graded Chronic Pain Scale (resting pain): p = Not Significant (between groups) (all groups) at 6w, p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6 mos FU, Effect Size = -0.23, Active Control pre / post; Graded Chronic Pain Scale (maximum opening pain): p = Not Significant (between groups) (all groups) at 6w, p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6 mos FU; Graded Chronic Pain Scale (clenching pain): p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6w, p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6 mos FU; Inter-incisal Opening Range (activity): p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6w, p = .01 (between groups) (all groups) at 6 mos FU. |
| Conclusions |
Massage effective for:
Pain,
Activity. |
| Adverse Events |
Authors report NO AEs occurred |
| PubMed Link |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=kalamir++Intra-oral+myofascial+therapy+for+chronic+myogenous+temporomandibular+disorders%3A+A+randomized%2C+controlled+pilot+study |
|
| 34 |
1677 |
Kankaanpaa, 1999* |
M. Kankaanpaa, S. Taimela, O. Airaksinen and O. Hanninen |
The efficacy of active rehabilitation in chronic low back pain. Effect on pain intensity, self-experienced disability, and lumbar fatigability |
1999 |
Spine (Phila Pa 1976) |
vol |
24 |
vol 24 |
10 |
pages |
1034-42 |
Group 1 |
pages 1034-42 |
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), vol 24: 10, pages 1034-42 |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic non-specific low back pain |
59c (37M/22F) participants with chronic non-specific low back pain (mean age = ND) |
|
Visual Analog Scale (back pain intensity)
Pain and Disability Index (low back pain)
|
Pain: Visual Analog Scale, Pain and Disability Index.
|
59 |
2-Acceptable |
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized study comparing the results of active rehabilitation and passive control treatment in patients with chronic low back pain with follow-up at 6 months and 1 year. OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy of active rehabilitation on pain self-experienced disability and lumbar fatigability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Exercises in an outpatient setting are widely used for the treatment of chronic low back pain. The efficacy of the active rehabilitation approach has been documented in randomized control studies but these studies have seldom been focused on lumbar fatigability which is now recognized as a frequent problem among patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Fifty-nine middle-aged patients (37 men and 22 women) with nonspecific chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to 12 weeks'' active rehabilitation or to a passive control treatment (massage thermal therapy). Pain and disability index low back pain intensity (visual analog scale 100 mm) and the objectively assessed lumbar muscle fatigability (spectral electromyogram mean power frequency slope [MPFSLOPE]) in a new 90-second submaximal isoinertial back endurance test were recorded before and after the interventions and at 6-month and 1-year follow-up visits. RESULTS: Results of repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance indicated that back pain intensity (visual analog scale) and functional disability (pain and disability index score) decreased and lumbar endurance (MPFSLOPE) improved significantly more (P < 0.05) in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group when measured at a 1-year follow-up examination. The group difference in visual analog scale and pain and disability index changes became even more significant at the end of 1 year. The change in lumbar endurance was significantly greater in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group at the 6-month follow-up but not at the 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The active progressive treatment program was more successful in reducing pain and self-experienced disability and also in improving lumbar endurance than was the passive control treatment. However the group difference in lumbar endurance tended to diminish at the 1-year follow-up. |
Adult |
Not Described |
ND |
Physiotherapist |
Massage with thermal therapy: 29 (17%);
Active Rehabilitation (Active Control): 30 (0%). |
29 (17%);
30 (0%). |
|
Massage with thermal therapy: 4 x ND, 1x/w, 1m + ND;
Active Rehabilitation (Active Control): 24 x 1.5h, ND, 12w + ND. |
4 x ND, 1x/w, 1m + ND;
24 x 1.5h, ND, 12w + ND. |
Yes |
*Visual Analog Scale (back pain intensity): p = Not Significant (within groups) (massage), p = 0.016 (within groups) (Active Control), p < 0.033 (between groups) at all time points, Men Effect Size = -0.73, Active Control, pre / post, Men Effect Size = 0.86, Active Control, 6 mos FU; Women Effect Size = 0.51, Active Control, pre / post, Women Effect Size = 0.76, Active Control, 6 mos FU; Pain and Disability Index (low back pain): p = Not Significant (within groups) (massage), p = 0.000 (within groups) (Active Control), p < 0.043 (between groups) at all time points. |
No relevant significant results. |
Authors do not report or mention anything about AEs |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=kankaapapa+The+efficacy+of+active+rehabilitation+in+chronic+low+back+pain.+Effect+on+pain+intensity%2C+self-experienced+disability%2C+and+lumbar+fatigability |
| F1 |
34 |
| Refid |
1677 |
| Quick Author |
Kankaanpaa, 1999* |
| Author |
M. Kankaanpaa, S. Taimela, O. Airaksinen and O. Hanninen |
| Title |
The efficacy of active rehabilitation in chronic low back pain. Effect on pain intensity, self-experienced disability, and lumbar fatigability |
| Publication Date |
1999 |
| Periodical |
Spine (Phila Pa 1976) |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
24 |
| F10 |
vol 24 |
| Issue |
10 |
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
1034-42 |
| Group |
Group 1 |
| F15 |
pages 1034-42 |
| Publication Data |
Spine (Phila Pa 1976), vol 24: 10, pages 1034-42 |
| Condition |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic non-specific low back pain |
| Condition (to hide) |
59c (37M/22F) participants with chronic non-specific low back pain (mean age = ND) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Visual Analog Scale (back pain intensity)
Pain and Disability Index (low back pain)
|
| Outcome Measures_ |
Pain: Visual Analog Scale, Pain and Disability Index.
|
| Total Participants |
59 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
2-Acceptable |
| Abstract |
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized study comparing the results of active rehabilitation and passive control treatment in patients with chronic low back pain with follow-up at 6 months and 1 year. OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy of active rehabilitation on pain self-experienced disability and lumbar fatigability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Exercises in an outpatient setting are widely used for the treatment of chronic low back pain. The efficacy of the active rehabilitation approach has been documented in randomized control studies but these studies have seldom been focused on lumbar fatigability which is now recognized as a frequent problem among patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Fifty-nine middle-aged patients (37 men and 22 women) with nonspecific chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to 12 weeks'' active rehabilitation or to a passive control treatment (massage thermal therapy). Pain and disability index low back pain intensity (visual analog scale 100 mm) and the objectively assessed lumbar muscle fatigability (spectral electromyogram mean power frequency slope [MPFSLOPE]) in a new 90-second submaximal isoinertial back endurance test were recorded before and after the interventions and at 6-month and 1-year follow-up visits. RESULTS: Results of repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance indicated that back pain intensity (visual analog scale) and functional disability (pain and disability index score) decreased and lumbar endurance (MPFSLOPE) improved significantly more (P < 0.05) in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group when measured at a 1-year follow-up examination. The group difference in visual analog scale and pain and disability index changes became even more significant at the end of 1 year. The change in lumbar endurance was significantly greater in the active rehabilitation group than in the passive control treatment group at the 6-month follow-up but not at the 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The active progressive treatment program was more successful in reducing pain and self-experienced disability and also in improving lumbar endurance than was the passive control treatment. However the group difference in lumbar endurance tended to diminish at the 1-year follow-up. |
| Keywords |
Adult |
| Power |
Not Described |
| Power1 |
ND |
| Provider Type |
Physiotherapist |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Massage with thermal therapy: 29 (17%);
Active Rehabilitation (Active Control): 30 (0%). |
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
29 (17%);
30 (0%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Massage with thermal therapy: 4 x ND, 1x/w, 1m + ND;
Active Rehabilitation (Active Control): 24 x 1.5h, ND, 12w + ND. |
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
4 x ND, 1x/w, 1m + ND;
24 x 1.5h, ND, 12w + ND. |
| *Meta-Analysis |
Yes |
| Relevant Results _ |
*Visual Analog Scale (back pain intensity): p = Not Significant (within groups) (massage), p = 0.016 (within groups) (Active Control), p < 0.033 (between groups) at all time points, Men Effect Size = -0.73, Active Control, pre / post, Men Effect Size = 0.86, Active Control, 6 mos FU; Women Effect Size = 0.51, Active Control, pre / post, Women Effect Size = 0.76, Active Control, 6 mos FU; Pain and Disability Index (low back pain): p = Not Significant (within groups) (massage), p = 0.000 (within groups) (Active Control), p < 0.043 (between groups) at all time points. |
| Conclusions |
No relevant significant results. |
| Adverse Events |
Authors do not report or mention anything about AEs |
| PubMed Link |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=kankaapapa+The+efficacy+of+active+rehabilitation+in+chronic+low+back+pain.+Effect+on+pain+intensity%2C+self-experienced+disability%2C+and+lumbar+fatigability |
|
| 35 |
1857 |
Kostopoulos, 2008* |
D. Kostopoulos, A. J. Nelson, Jr., R. S. Ingber and R. W. Larkin |
Reduction of spontaneous electrical activity and pain perception of trigger points in the upper trapezius muscle through trigger point compression and passive stretching |
2008 |
Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain |
vol |
16 |
vol 16 |
4 |
pages |
267-279 |
Group 1 |
pages 267-279 |
Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain, vol 16: 4, pages 267-279 |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Muscle trigger points in upper trapezius |
90a (36M/54F) participants with upper trapezius muscle trigger points (mean age = ND) |
|
Visual Analog Scale (pain perception)
CommanderTM Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold)
Pain Pressure Threshold (Pain Pressure Threshold)
|
Pain: Visual Analog Scale (pain perception);
Pain Pressure Threshold: CommanderTM Algometer. |
90 |
2-Acceptable |
Objectives: Investigate the effects of ischemic compression [IC] technique and passive stretching [PS] in isolation and in combination on the reduction of spontaneous electrical activity [SEA] and perceived pain in trigger points [TrPs] located in the upper trapezius muscle. Methods: Ninety participants with TrPs in the upper trapezius muscle were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: IC PS and IC + PS. TrP compression was applied on the TrP for three applications of 60 seconds each followed by a 30-second rest period. PS was applied for three 45-second applications with 30-second rest intervals. All patients received the same amount of therapy. Results: Significant decreases were found in pain perception and on SEA for all study participants. The IC + PS group evidenced greater declines in pain perception and SEA when compared to the IC and PS groups. Conclusion: Because of ethical considerations a control group design was not possible thereby limiting the robustness of the findings. Although each technique significantly reduced pain perception and SEA the combination of IC and PS was superior apparently because of the complementary nature of the therapeutic interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA all rights reserved) (journal abstract) |
Ischemic compression technique |
Yes, power achieved |
Yes, it was established that three groups of 30 subjects each would result in a power coefficient greater than0.80. |
Physical therapist |
Ischemic Compression: 30 (0%);
Passive Stretching (Active Control): 30 (0%);
Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching: 30 (0%). |
30 (0%);
30 (0%);
30 (0%). |
|
Ischemic Compression: 6 x 15 mins, ND, 2w + home stretching exercises;
Passive Stretching (Active Control): ND;
Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching: ND. |
6 x 15 mins, ND, 2w + home stretching exercises;
ND;
ND.
|
Yes |
*Visual Analog Scale (pain perception): p < 0.05 (between groups) (all groups) over time, p < 0.05 (between groups) (Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching/ Ischemic Compression alone), (Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching/ Active Control) over time, Effect Size = 0.08, Active Control, pre / post; CommanderTM Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold): p < 0.05 (within groups) (Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching) at post, p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) over time; CommanderTM Algometer (Pressure tolerance): p = Not Significant (between groups) (all groups) over time. |
Massage effective for:
Pain,
Pain Pressure Threshold. |
Authors do not report or mention anything about AEs |
http://198.71.136.240/2056580149343.pdf |
| F1 |
35 |
| Refid |
1857 |
| Quick Author |
Kostopoulos, 2008* |
| Author |
D. Kostopoulos, A. J. Nelson, Jr., R. S. Ingber and R. W. Larkin |
| Title |
Reduction of spontaneous electrical activity and pain perception of trigger points in the upper trapezius muscle through trigger point compression and passive stretching |
| Publication Date |
2008 |
| Periodical |
Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
16 |
| F10 |
vol 16 |
| Issue |
4 |
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
267-279 |
| Group |
Group 1 |
| F15 |
pages 267-279 |
| Publication Data |
Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain, vol 16: 4, pages 267-279 |
| Condition |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Muscle trigger points in upper trapezius |
| Condition (to hide) |
90a (36M/54F) participants with upper trapezius muscle trigger points (mean age = ND) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Visual Analog Scale (pain perception)
CommanderTM Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold)
Pain Pressure Threshold (Pain Pressure Threshold)
|
| Outcome Measures_ |
Pain: Visual Analog Scale (pain perception);
Pain Pressure Threshold: CommanderTM Algometer. |
| Total Participants |
90 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
2-Acceptable |
| Abstract |
Objectives: Investigate the effects of ischemic compression [IC] technique and passive stretching [PS] in isolation and in combination on the reduction of spontaneous electrical activity [SEA] and perceived pain in trigger points [TrPs] located in the upper trapezius muscle. Methods: Ninety participants with TrPs in the upper trapezius muscle were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: IC PS and IC + PS. TrP compression was applied on the TrP for three applications of 60 seconds each followed by a 30-second rest period. PS was applied for three 45-second applications with 30-second rest intervals. All patients received the same amount of therapy. Results: Significant decreases were found in pain perception and on SEA for all study participants. The IC + PS group evidenced greater declines in pain perception and SEA when compared to the IC and PS groups. Conclusion: Because of ethical considerations a control group design was not possible thereby limiting the robustness of the findings. Although each technique significantly reduced pain perception and SEA the combination of IC and PS was superior apparently because of the complementary nature of the therapeutic interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA all rights reserved) (journal abstract) |
| Keywords |
Ischemic compression technique |
| Power |
Yes, power achieved |
| Power1 |
Yes, it was established that three groups of 30 subjects each would result in a power coefficient greater than0.80. |
| Provider Type |
Physical therapist |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Ischemic Compression: 30 (0%);
Passive Stretching (Active Control): 30 (0%);
Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching: 30 (0%). |
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
30 (0%);
30 (0%);
30 (0%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Ischemic Compression: 6 x 15 mins, ND, 2w + home stretching exercises;
Passive Stretching (Active Control): ND;
Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching: ND. |
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
6 x 15 mins, ND, 2w + home stretching exercises;
ND;
ND.
|
| *Meta-Analysis |
Yes |
| Relevant Results _ |
*Visual Analog Scale (pain perception): p < 0.05 (between groups) (all groups) over time, p < 0.05 (between groups) (Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching/ Ischemic Compression alone), (Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching/ Active Control) over time, Effect Size = 0.08, Active Control, pre / post; CommanderTM Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold): p < 0.05 (within groups) (Ischemic Compression + Passive Stretching) at post, p < 0.01 (between groups) (all groups) over time; CommanderTM Algometer (Pressure tolerance): p = Not Significant (between groups) (all groups) over time. |
| Conclusions |
Massage effective for:
Pain,
Pain Pressure Threshold. |
| Adverse Events |
Authors do not report or mention anything about AEs |
| PubMed Link |
http://198.71.136.240/2056580149343.pdf |
|
| 36 |
1890 |
Kumnerddee, 2009* |
W. Kumnerddee |
Effectiveness comparison between Thai traditional massage and Chinese acupuncture for myofascial back pain in Thai military personnel: a preliminary report |
2009 |
J Med Assoc Thai |
vol |
92 Suppl 1 |
vol 92 Suppl 1 |
|
pages |
S117-23 |
Group 1 |
pages S117-23 |
J Med Assoc Thai, vol 92 Suppl 1: , pages S117-23 |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Myofascial back pain |
18c males with myofascial back pain (mean age = 28 ± 6.84 yrs) |
|
Visual Analog Scale (pain)
McGill Pain Questionnaire (back pain)
Pain threshold (pain)
|
Pain: Visual Analog Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire;
Pain Pressure Threshold: Pressure Algometry.
|
18 |
2-Acceptable |
The objective of this randomized comparative study was to provide preliminary data of comparative effectiveness of Thai traditional massage (TTM) and Chinese acupuncture for the treatment of myofascial back pain in young military personnel. Eighteen Thai military personnel aged ranging from 20-40 years were randomly divided into TTM and acupuncture groups. Each group received 5 sessions of massage or acupuncture during a 10-day period. The Thai version McGill Pain Questionnaire 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) and summation of pain threshold in each trigger point measured by pressure algometer were assessed at day 0 3 8 and 10. At the end of treatment protocols McGill scores decreased significantly in TTM and acupuncture groups (p = 0.024 and 0.002 respectively). VAS also decreased significantly (p = 0.029 and 0.003 respectively). However the pain pressure threshold increased significantly in the acupuncture group but not in the TTM group (p = 0.006 and 0.08 respectively). When outcomes were compared between the two groups no significant difference was found in the VAS (p = 0.115) and pain pressure threshold (p = 0.116) whereas the acupuncture group showed significantly lower McGill scores than the TTM group (p = 0.039). In conclusion five sessions of Thai traditional massage and Chinese acupuncture were effective for the treatment of myofascial back pain in young Thai military personnel. Significant effects in both groups begin after the first session. Acupuncture is more effective than Thai traditional massage when affective aspect is also evaluated. |
Acupuncture Therapy/*methods |
Not Described |
ND |
Traditional Thai Massage therapist |
Traditional Thai Massage: 9 (11%);
Acupuncture (Active Control): 9 (0%). |
9 (11%);
9 (0%). |
|
Traditional Thai Massage: 5 x 60 mins, 2-3x/w, 10d + ND;
Acupuncture (Active Control): ND. |
5 x 60 mins, 2-3x/w, 10d + ND;
ND. |
Yes |
*Visual Analog Scale (pain): p = 0.03 (within groups) (Traditional Thai Massage), p = 0.003 (within groups) (Active Control) at post, Effect Size = 0.57, Active Control, pre / post; McGill Pain Questionnaire (back pain): p = 0.02 (within groups) (Traditional Thai Massage), p = 0.002 (within groups) (acupuncture) at post; Pressure Algometry (Pain Pressure Threshold): p = Not Significant (within groups) (Traditional Thai Massage), p = 0.006 (within groups) (Active Control) at post. |
Massage effective for:
Pain. |
One subject in the massage group dropped out because of post-massage soreness |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=kumnerddee++Effectiveness+comparison+between+Thai+traditional+massage+and+Chinese+acupuncture+for+myofascial+back+pain+in+Thai+military+personnel%3A+a+preliminary+report |
| F1 |
36 |
| Refid |
1890 |
| Quick Author |
Kumnerddee, 2009* |
| Author |
W. Kumnerddee |
| Title |
Effectiveness comparison between Thai traditional massage and Chinese acupuncture for myofascial back pain in Thai military personnel: a preliminary report |
| Publication Date |
2009 |
| Periodical |
J Med Assoc Thai |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
92 Suppl 1 |
| F10 |
vol 92 Suppl 1 |
| Issue |
|
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
S117-23 |
| Group |
Group 1 |
| F15 |
pages S117-23 |
| Publication Data |
J Med Assoc Thai, vol 92 Suppl 1: , pages S117-23 |
| Condition |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Myofascial back pain |
| Condition (to hide) |
18c males with myofascial back pain (mean age = 28 ± 6.84 yrs) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Visual Analog Scale (pain)
McGill Pain Questionnaire (back pain)
Pain threshold (pain)
|
| Outcome Measures_ |
Pain: Visual Analog Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire;
Pain Pressure Threshold: Pressure Algometry.
|
| Total Participants |
18 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
2-Acceptable |
| Abstract |
The objective of this randomized comparative study was to provide preliminary data of comparative effectiveness of Thai traditional massage (TTM) and Chinese acupuncture for the treatment of myofascial back pain in young military personnel. Eighteen Thai military personnel aged ranging from 20-40 years were randomly divided into TTM and acupuncture groups. Each group received 5 sessions of massage or acupuncture during a 10-day period. The Thai version McGill Pain Questionnaire 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) and summation of pain threshold in each trigger point measured by pressure algometer were assessed at day 0 3 8 and 10. At the end of treatment protocols McGill scores decreased significantly in TTM and acupuncture groups (p = 0.024 and 0.002 respectively). VAS also decreased significantly (p = 0.029 and 0.003 respectively). However the pain pressure threshold increased significantly in the acupuncture group but not in the TTM group (p = 0.006 and 0.08 respectively). When outcomes were compared between the two groups no significant difference was found in the VAS (p = 0.115) and pain pressure threshold (p = 0.116) whereas the acupuncture group showed significantly lower McGill scores than the TTM group (p = 0.039). In conclusion five sessions of Thai traditional massage and Chinese acupuncture were effective for the treatment of myofascial back pain in young Thai military personnel. Significant effects in both groups begin after the first session. Acupuncture is more effective than Thai traditional massage when affective aspect is also evaluated. |
| Keywords |
Acupuncture Therapy/*methods |
| Power |
Not Described |
| Power1 |
ND |
| Provider Type |
Traditional Thai Massage therapist |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Traditional Thai Massage: 9 (11%);
Acupuncture (Active Control): 9 (0%). |
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
9 (11%);
9 (0%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Traditional Thai Massage: 5 x 60 mins, 2-3x/w, 10d + ND;
Acupuncture (Active Control): ND. |
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
5 x 60 mins, 2-3x/w, 10d + ND;
ND. |
| *Meta-Analysis |
Yes |
| Relevant Results _ |
*Visual Analog Scale (pain): p = 0.03 (within groups) (Traditional Thai Massage), p = 0.003 (within groups) (Active Control) at post, Effect Size = 0.57, Active Control, pre / post; McGill Pain Questionnaire (back pain): p = 0.02 (within groups) (Traditional Thai Massage), p = 0.002 (within groups) (acupuncture) at post; Pressure Algometry (Pain Pressure Threshold): p = Not Significant (within groups) (Traditional Thai Massage), p = 0.006 (within groups) (Active Control) at post. |
| Conclusions |
Massage effective for:
Pain. |
| Adverse Events |
One subject in the massage group dropped out because of post-massage soreness |
| PubMed Link |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=kumnerddee++Effectiveness+comparison+between+Thai+traditional+massage+and+Chinese+acupuncture+for+myofascial+back+pain+in+Thai+military+personnel%3A+a+preliminary+report |
|
| 37 |
1924 |
Lamas, 2009 |
K. Lamas, L. Lindholm, H. Stenlund, B. Engstrom and C. Jacobsson |
Effects of abdominal massage in management of constipation--a randomized controlled trial |
2009 |
Int J Nurs Stud |
vol |
46 |
vol 46 |
6 |
pages |
759-67 |
Group 3 |
pages 759-67 |
Int J Nurs Stud, vol 46: 6, pages 759-67 |
Visceral Pain: Constipation |
60bc (sex = ND) participants with constipation (mean age = 64 ± 10.5 yrs) |
|
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (abdominal pain)
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (constipation)
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (indigestion)
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (diarrhea)
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (number of bowel movements)
|
Pain: Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale;
Quality of Life: Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale |
60 |
2-Acceptable |
BACKGROUND: Associated with decreases in quality of life constipation is a relatively common problem. Abdominal massage appears to increase bowel function but unlike laxatives with no negative side effects. Because earlier studies have methodological flaws and cannot provide recommendations more research is needed. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the effects of abdominal massage on gastrointestinal functions and laxative intake in people who have constipation. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD: A sample of 60 people with constipation was included and randomized in two groups. The intervention group received abdominal massage in addition to an earlier prescribed laxative and the control group received only laxatives according to earlier prescriptions. Gastrointestinal function was assessed with Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS) on three occasions; at baseline week 4 and week 8. The statistical methods included linear regression Wilcoxon sign rank test and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULT: Abdominal massage significantly decreased severity of gastrointestinal symptoms assessed with GSRS according to total score (p=.003) constipation syndrome (p=.013) and abdominal pain syndrome (p=.019). The intervention group also had significant increase of bowel movements compared to the control group (p=.016). There was no significant difference in the change of the amount of laxative intake after 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal massage decreased severity of gastrointestinal symptoms especially constipation and abdominal pain syndrome and increased bowel movements. The massage did not lead to decrease in laxative intake a result that indicates that abdominal massage could be a complement to laxatives rather than a substitute. |
Abdomen |
No, power not achieved |
No |
Massage therapist |
Abdominal Massage + laxatives: 30 (13%);
Laxatives: 30 (13%). |
30 (13%);
30 (13%). |
|
Abdominal Massage + laxatives: ND x 15 mins, 5x/w, 8w + ND;
Laxatives: ND. |
ND x 15 mins, 5x/w, 8w + ND;
ND. |
No |
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (abdominal pain): p = 0.01 (between groups) at 8w; Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (constipation): p = 0.01 (between groups) at 8w; Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (indigestion): p = Not Significant (between groups) at all time points; Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (diarrhea): p = Not Significant (between groups) at all time points; Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (number of bowel movements): p = 0.02 (between groups) at 8w. |
Massage effective for: Pain,
Quality of Life.
|
Authors do not report or mention anything about AEs |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lamas++Effects+of+abdominal+massage+in+management+of+constipation--a+randomized+controlled+trial |
| F1 |
37 |
| Refid |
1924 |
| Quick Author |
Lamas, 2009 |
| Author |
K. Lamas, L. Lindholm, H. Stenlund, B. Engstrom and C. Jacobsson |
| Title |
Effects of abdominal massage in management of constipation--a randomized controlled trial |
| Publication Date |
2009 |
| Periodical |
Int J Nurs Stud |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
46 |
| F10 |
vol 46 |
| Issue |
6 |
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
759-67 |
| Group |
Group 3 |
| F15 |
pages 759-67 |
| Publication Data |
Int J Nurs Stud, vol 46: 6, pages 759-67 |
| Condition |
Visceral Pain: Constipation |
| Condition (to hide) |
60bc (sex = ND) participants with constipation (mean age = 64 ± 10.5 yrs) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (abdominal pain)
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (constipation)
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (indigestion)
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (diarrhea)
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (number of bowel movements)
|
| Outcome Measures_ |
Pain: Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale;
Quality of Life: Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale |
| Total Participants |
60 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
2-Acceptable |
| Abstract |
BACKGROUND: Associated with decreases in quality of life constipation is a relatively common problem. Abdominal massage appears to increase bowel function but unlike laxatives with no negative side effects. Because earlier studies have methodological flaws and cannot provide recommendations more research is needed. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the effects of abdominal massage on gastrointestinal functions and laxative intake in people who have constipation. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD: A sample of 60 people with constipation was included and randomized in two groups. The intervention group received abdominal massage in addition to an earlier prescribed laxative and the control group received only laxatives according to earlier prescriptions. Gastrointestinal function was assessed with Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS) on three occasions; at baseline week 4 and week 8. The statistical methods included linear regression Wilcoxon sign rank test and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULT: Abdominal massage significantly decreased severity of gastrointestinal symptoms assessed with GSRS according to total score (p=.003) constipation syndrome (p=.013) and abdominal pain syndrome (p=.019). The intervention group also had significant increase of bowel movements compared to the control group (p=.016). There was no significant difference in the change of the amount of laxative intake after 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal massage decreased severity of gastrointestinal symptoms especially constipation and abdominal pain syndrome and increased bowel movements. The massage did not lead to decrease in laxative intake a result that indicates that abdominal massage could be a complement to laxatives rather than a substitute. |
| Keywords |
Abdomen |
| Power |
No, power not achieved |
| Power1 |
No |
| Provider Type |
Massage therapist |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Abdominal Massage + laxatives: 30 (13%);
Laxatives: 30 (13%). |
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
30 (13%);
30 (13%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Abdominal Massage + laxatives: ND x 15 mins, 5x/w, 8w + ND;
Laxatives: ND. |
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
ND x 15 mins, 5x/w, 8w + ND;
ND. |
| *Meta-Analysis |
No |
| Relevant Results _ |
Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (abdominal pain): p = 0.01 (between groups) at 8w; Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (constipation): p = 0.01 (between groups) at 8w; Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (indigestion): p = Not Significant (between groups) at all time points; Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (diarrhea): p = Not Significant (between groups) at all time points; Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (number of bowel movements): p = 0.02 (between groups) at 8w. |
| Conclusions |
Massage effective for: Pain,
Quality of Life.
|
| Adverse Events |
Authors do not report or mention anything about AEs |
| PubMed Link |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lamas++Effects+of+abdominal+massage+in+management+of+constipation--a+randomized+controlled+trial |
|
| 38 |
1937 |
Lara-Palomo, 2013 |
I. C. Lara-Palomo, M. E. Aguilar-Ferrandiz, G. A. Mataran-Penarrocha, M. Saavedra-Hernandez, J. Granero-Molina, C. Fernandez-Sola and A. M. Castro-Sanchez |
Short-term effects of interferential current electro-massage in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial |
2013 |
Clin Rehabil |
vol |
27 |
vol 27 |
5 |
pages |
439-49 |
Group 1 |
pages 439-49 |
Clin Rehabil, vol 27: 5, pages 439-49 |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic non-specific low back pain |
62c (sex = ND) participants with chronic non-specific low back pain (mean age = 48 ± 15 yrs) |
|
Visual Analog Scale (pain intensity)
Oswestry Disability Index (daily life activity)
McQuade Test (resistance of abdominal muscles)
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (disability)
Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (fear of movement)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: physical function, physical role, body pain)
|
Pain: Visual Analog Scale;
Activity: Oswestry Disability Index, McQuade Test, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire,
Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia;
Quality of Life: Short Form-36 Health Survey.
|
62 |
2-Acceptable |
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the effectiveness of a combined procedure of massage and electrotherapy with interferential current in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain of mechanical aetiology. DESIGN: A single blinded randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Clinical setting. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-two individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. For 10 weeks the experimental group underwent treatment comprising 20 sessions (twice a week) of massage with interferential current in the lumbar and dorsal-lumbar area and the control group received superficial lower back massage (effleurage superficial pressure and skin rolling). MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: Oswestry Disability Index pain visual analogue scale Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire McQuade Test Side Bridge Test quality of life scores and the range of trunk anteflexion motion which were all assessed before the treatment and immediately after the last treatment session. RESULTS: The 2 x 2 mixed model ANOVA with repeated measurements showed statistically significant group * time interactions for the visual analogue scale (F = 12.839; P = 0.001) Oswestry Disability Index (F = 5.850; P = 0.019) Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (F = 8.237; P = 0.006) and quality of life (physical function (F = 16.792; P = 0.001) physical role (F = 14.839; P = 0.001) and body pain (F = 11.247; P = 0.001)). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain interferential current electro-massage achieved a significantly greater improvement in disability pain and quality of life in comparison to superficial massage after 20 treatment sessions. |
Activities of Daily Living |
Not Described |
ND |
Therapist (type not specified) |
Manual Massage: 31 (0%);
Electromassage: 31 (3%). |
31 (0%);
31 (3%). |
|
Manual Massage: 20 x 20 mins, 2x/w, 10w + ND;
Electromassage: 20 x 30 mins, 2x/w, 10w + ND. |
20 x 20 mins, 2x/w, 10w + ND;
20 x 30 mins, 2x/w, 10w + ND. |
No |
Visual Analog Scale (pain intensity): p < 0.05 (between groups) over time; Oswestry Disability Index (daily life activity): p < 0.05 (between groups) over time; McQuade Test (resistance of abdominal muscles): p = Not Significant (between groups) over time; Side Bridge Test (resistance): p = Not Significant (between groups) over time; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (disability): p < 0.05 (between groups) over time; Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (fear of movement): p = Not Significant (between groups) over time; Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: physical function, physical role, body pain): p < 0.05 (between groups) over time. |
Massage effective for:
Pain,
Activity,
Quality of Life. |
Authors do not report or mention anything about AEs |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lara-paloma+Short-term+effects+of+interferential+current+electro-massage+in+adults+with+chronic+non-specific+low+back+pain%3A+a+randomized+controlled+trial |
| F1 |
38 |
| Refid |
1937 |
| Quick Author |
Lara-Palomo, 2013 |
| Author |
I. C. Lara-Palomo, M. E. Aguilar-Ferrandiz, G. A. Mataran-Penarrocha, M. Saavedra-Hernandez, J. Granero-Molina, C. Fernandez-Sola and A. M. Castro-Sanchez |
| Title |
Short-term effects of interferential current electro-massage in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial |
| Publication Date |
2013 |
| Periodical |
Clin Rehabil |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
27 |
| F10 |
vol 27 |
| Issue |
5 |
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
439-49 |
| Group |
Group 1 |
| F15 |
pages 439-49 |
| Publication Data |
Clin Rehabil, vol 27: 5, pages 439-49 |
| Condition |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic non-specific low back pain |
| Condition (to hide) |
62c (sex = ND) participants with chronic non-specific low back pain (mean age = 48 ± 15 yrs) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Visual Analog Scale (pain intensity)
Oswestry Disability Index (daily life activity)
McQuade Test (resistance of abdominal muscles)
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (disability)
Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (fear of movement)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: physical function, physical role, body pain)
|
| Outcome Measures_ |
Pain: Visual Analog Scale;
Activity: Oswestry Disability Index, McQuade Test, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire,
Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia;
Quality of Life: Short Form-36 Health Survey.
|
| Total Participants |
62 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
2-Acceptable |
| Abstract |
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the effectiveness of a combined procedure of massage and electrotherapy with interferential current in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain of mechanical aetiology. DESIGN: A single blinded randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Clinical setting. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-two individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. For 10 weeks the experimental group underwent treatment comprising 20 sessions (twice a week) of massage with interferential current in the lumbar and dorsal-lumbar area and the control group received superficial lower back massage (effleurage superficial pressure and skin rolling). MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: Oswestry Disability Index pain visual analogue scale Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire McQuade Test Side Bridge Test quality of life scores and the range of trunk anteflexion motion which were all assessed before the treatment and immediately after the last treatment session. RESULTS: The 2 x 2 mixed model ANOVA with repeated measurements showed statistically significant group * time interactions for the visual analogue scale (F = 12.839; P = 0.001) Oswestry Disability Index (F = 5.850; P = 0.019) Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (F = 8.237; P = 0.006) and quality of life (physical function (F = 16.792; P = 0.001) physical role (F = 14.839; P = 0.001) and body pain (F = 11.247; P = 0.001)). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain interferential current electro-massage achieved a significantly greater improvement in disability pain and quality of life in comparison to superficial massage after 20 treatment sessions. |
| Keywords |
Activities of Daily Living |
| Power |
Not Described |
| Power1 |
ND |
| Provider Type |
Therapist (type not specified) |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Manual Massage: 31 (0%);
Electromassage: 31 (3%). |
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
31 (0%);
31 (3%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Manual Massage: 20 x 20 mins, 2x/w, 10w + ND;
Electromassage: 20 x 30 mins, 2x/w, 10w + ND. |
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
20 x 20 mins, 2x/w, 10w + ND;
20 x 30 mins, 2x/w, 10w + ND. |
| *Meta-Analysis |
No |
| Relevant Results _ |
Visual Analog Scale (pain intensity): p < 0.05 (between groups) over time; Oswestry Disability Index (daily life activity): p < 0.05 (between groups) over time; McQuade Test (resistance of abdominal muscles): p = Not Significant (between groups) over time; Side Bridge Test (resistance): p = Not Significant (between groups) over time; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (disability): p < 0.05 (between groups) over time; Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (fear of movement): p = Not Significant (between groups) over time; Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: physical function, physical role, body pain): p < 0.05 (between groups) over time. |
| Conclusions |
Massage effective for:
Pain,
Activity,
Quality of Life. |
| Adverse Events |
Authors do not report or mention anything about AEs |
| PubMed Link |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lara-paloma+Short-term+effects+of+interferential+current+electro-massage+in+adults+with+chronic+non-specific+low+back+pain%3A+a+randomized+controlled+trial |
|
| 39 |
1952 |
Lauche, 2013* |
R. Lauche, S. Materdey, H. Cramer, H. Haller, R. Stange, G. Dobos and T. Rampp |
Effectiveness of home-based cupping massage compared to progressive muscle relaxation in patients with chronic neck pain--a randomized controlled trial |
2013 |
PLoS One |
vol |
8 |
vol 8 |
6 |
pages |
e65378 |
Group 1 |
pages e65378 |
PLoS One, vol 8: 6, pages e65378 |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic non-specific low back pain |
61c (sex = ND) participants with chronic non-specific neck pain (mean age = ND) |
|
Visual Analog Scale (perceived pain)
Visual Analog Scale (pain on motion)
Pain Description List (perception of pain)
Neck Disability Index (functional neck-related disability)
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (distress)
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality (stress perception)
Health Related Control Belief (locus of control beliefs)
Questionnaire on the Assessment of Physical Wellbeing (Quality of Life)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (health related Quality of Life)
Digital Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold)
|
Pain: Visual Analog Scale, Pain Description List;
Activity: Neck Disability Index;
Mood: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale;
Sleep: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality;
Mood: Health Related Control Belief;
Quality of Life: Questionnaire on the Assessment of |
61 |
1-High |
Chronic neck pain is a major public health problem with very few evidence-based complementary treatment options. This study aimed to test the efficacy of 12 weeks of a partner-delivered home-based cupping massage compared to the same period of progressive muscle relaxation in patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. Patients were randomly assigned to self-directed cupping massage or progressive muscle relaxation. They were trained and asked to undertake the assigned treatment twice weekly for 12 weeks. Primary outcome measure was the current neck pain intensity (0-100 mm visual analog scale; VAS) after 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included pain on motion affective pain perception functional disability psychological distress wellbeing health-related quality of life pressure pain thresholds and adverse events. Sixty one patients (54.1+/-12.7 years; 73.8þmale) were randomized to cupping massage (n = 30) or progressive muscle relaxation (n = 31). After treatment both groups showed significantly less pain compared to baseline however without significant group differences. Significant effects in favor of cupping massage were only found for wellbeing and pressure pain thresholds. In conclusion cupping massage is no more effective than progressive muscle relaxation in reducing chronic non-specific neck pain. Both therapies can be easily used at home and can reduce pain to a minimal clinically relevant extent. Cupping massage may however be better than PMR in improving well-being and decreasing pressure pain sensitivity but more studies with larger samples and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01500330. |
Chronic Pain/drug therapy/*physiopathology/*therapy |
Not Described |
ND |
Teacher and two assistants (no further description) |
Cupping Massage: 30 (13%);
Progressive Muscle Relaxation (Active Control): 31 (10%). |
30 (13%);
31 (10%). |
|
Cupping Massage: 24 x 10-15 mins, 2x/w, 12w + ND;
Progressive Muscle Relaxation (Active Control): ND x 20 mins, ND, ND + ND. |
24 x 10-15 mins, 2x/w, 12w + ND;
ND x 20 mins, ND, ND + ND. |
Yes |
*Visual Analog Scale (perceived pain): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w, Effect Size = -0.20, Active Control, pre / post; Visual Analog Scale (pain on motion): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; Pain Description List (perception of pain): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; Neck Disability Index (functional neck-related disability): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; *Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (distress): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality (stress perception): Not Described; Health Related Control Belief (locus of control beliefs): Not Described; Questionnaire on the Assessment of Physical Wellbeing (Quality of Life): p < 0.05 (between groups) at 12w; *Short Form-36 Health Survey (Health Related Quality of Life): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; Digital Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold): p < 0.05 (between groups) at 12w. |
Massage effective for:
Quality of Life,
Pain Pressure Threshold. |
Three patients in the CM group reported adverse events during the trial, one of which was considered serious. One patient felt increased muscular tension and pain the morning after cupping massage, but this situation resolved some hours later. Another pat |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lauche++Effectiveness+of+home-based+cupping+massage+compared+to+progressive+muscle+relaxation+in+patients+with+chronic+neck+pain--a+randomized+controlled+trial |
| F1 |
39 |
| Refid |
1952 |
| Quick Author |
Lauche, 2013* |
| Author |
R. Lauche, S. Materdey, H. Cramer, H. Haller, R. Stange, G. Dobos and T. Rampp |
| Title |
Effectiveness of home-based cupping massage compared to progressive muscle relaxation in patients with chronic neck pain--a randomized controlled trial |
| Publication Date |
2013 |
| Periodical |
PLoS One |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
8 |
| F10 |
vol 8 |
| Issue |
6 |
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
e65378 |
| Group |
Group 1 |
| F15 |
pages e65378 |
| Publication Data |
PLoS One, vol 8: 6, pages e65378 |
| Condition |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic non-specific low back pain |
| Condition (to hide) |
61c (sex = ND) participants with chronic non-specific neck pain (mean age = ND) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Visual Analog Scale (perceived pain)
Visual Analog Scale (pain on motion)
Pain Description List (perception of pain)
Neck Disability Index (functional neck-related disability)
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (distress)
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality (stress perception)
Health Related Control Belief (locus of control beliefs)
Questionnaire on the Assessment of Physical Wellbeing (Quality of Life)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (health related Quality of Life)
Digital Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold)
|
| Outcome Measures_ |
Pain: Visual Analog Scale, Pain Description List;
Activity: Neck Disability Index;
Mood: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale;
Sleep: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality;
Mood: Health Related Control Belief;
Quality of Life: Questionnaire on the Assessment of |
| Total Participants |
61 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
1-High |
| Abstract |
Chronic neck pain is a major public health problem with very few evidence-based complementary treatment options. This study aimed to test the efficacy of 12 weeks of a partner-delivered home-based cupping massage compared to the same period of progressive muscle relaxation in patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. Patients were randomly assigned to self-directed cupping massage or progressive muscle relaxation. They were trained and asked to undertake the assigned treatment twice weekly for 12 weeks. Primary outcome measure was the current neck pain intensity (0-100 mm visual analog scale; VAS) after 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included pain on motion affective pain perception functional disability psychological distress wellbeing health-related quality of life pressure pain thresholds and adverse events. Sixty one patients (54.1+/-12.7 years; 73.8þmale) were randomized to cupping massage (n = 30) or progressive muscle relaxation (n = 31). After treatment both groups showed significantly less pain compared to baseline however without significant group differences. Significant effects in favor of cupping massage were only found for wellbeing and pressure pain thresholds. In conclusion cupping massage is no more effective than progressive muscle relaxation in reducing chronic non-specific neck pain. Both therapies can be easily used at home and can reduce pain to a minimal clinically relevant extent. Cupping massage may however be better than PMR in improving well-being and decreasing pressure pain sensitivity but more studies with larger samples and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01500330. |
| Keywords |
Chronic Pain/drug therapy/*physiopathology/*therapy |
| Power |
Not Described |
| Power1 |
ND |
| Provider Type |
Teacher and two assistants (no further description) |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Cupping Massage: 30 (13%);
Progressive Muscle Relaxation (Active Control): 31 (10%). |
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
30 (13%);
31 (10%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Cupping Massage: 24 x 10-15 mins, 2x/w, 12w + ND;
Progressive Muscle Relaxation (Active Control): ND x 20 mins, ND, ND + ND. |
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
24 x 10-15 mins, 2x/w, 12w + ND;
ND x 20 mins, ND, ND + ND. |
| *Meta-Analysis |
Yes |
| Relevant Results _ |
*Visual Analog Scale (perceived pain): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w, Effect Size = -0.20, Active Control, pre / post; Visual Analog Scale (pain on motion): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; Pain Description List (perception of pain): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; Neck Disability Index (functional neck-related disability): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; *Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (distress): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality (stress perception): Not Described; Health Related Control Belief (locus of control beliefs): Not Described; Questionnaire on the Assessment of Physical Wellbeing (Quality of Life): p < 0.05 (between groups) at 12w; *Short Form-36 Health Survey (Health Related Quality of Life): p = Not Significant (between groups) at 12w; Digital Algometer (Pain Pressure Threshold): p < 0.05 (between groups) at 12w. |
| Conclusions |
Massage effective for:
Quality of Life,
Pain Pressure Threshold. |
| Adverse Events |
Three patients in the CM group reported adverse events during the trial, one of which was considered serious. One patient felt increased muscular tension and pain the morning after cupping massage, but this situation resolved some hours later. Another pat |
| PubMed Link |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lauche++Effectiveness+of+home-based+cupping+massage+compared+to+progressive+muscle+relaxation+in+patients+with+chronic+neck+pain--a+randomized+controlled+trial |
|
| 40 |
2057 |
Little, 2008 |
P. Little, G. Lewith, F. Webley, M. Evans, A. Beattie, K. Middleton, J. Barnett, K. Ballard, F. Oxford, P. Smith, L. Yardley, S. Hollinghurst and D. Sharp |
Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain |
2008 |
BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition) |
vol |
337 |
vol 337 |
7667 |
pages |
438-441 |
Group 1 |
pages 438-441 |
BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition), vol 337: 7667, pages 438-441 |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic or recurrent back pain |
579c (sex = ND) participants with chronic or recurrent back pain (mean age = 46 ± 10.5 yrs) |
|
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (disability)
Von Korff Scale (disability)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: physical)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: mental)
Deyo Scale (troubleness)
|
Activity: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire,
Von Korff Scale, Short Form-36 Health Survey;
Mood: Short Form-36 Health Survey;
Quality of Life: Deyo Scale.
|
579 |
2-Acceptable |
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of lessons in the Alexander technique,
massage therapy, and advice from a doctor to take exercise (exercise
prescription) along with nurse delivered behavioural counseling for patients
with chronic or recurrent back pain.
DESIGN: Factorial randomised trial. Setting 64 general practices in England.
PARTICIPANTS: 579 patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain; 144 were
randomised to normal care, 147 to massage, 144 to six Alexander technique
lessons, and 144 to 24 Alexander technique lessons; half of each of these groups
were randomised to exercise prescription.
INTERVENTIONS: Normal care (control), six sessions of massage, six or 24 lessons
on the Alexander technique, and prescription for exercise from a doctor with
nurse delivered behavioural counselling.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Roland Morris disability score (number of activities
impaired by pain) and number of days in pain.
RESULTS: Exercise and lessons in the Alexander technique, but not massage,
remained effective at one year (compared with control Roland disability score
8.1: massage -0.58, 95% confidence interval -1.94 to 0.77, six lessons -1.40,
-2.77 to -0.03, 24 lessons -3.4, -4.76 to -2.03, and exercise -1.29, -2.25 to
-0.34). Exercise after six lessons achieved 72% of the effect of 24 lessons alone
(Roland disability score -2.98 and -4.14, respectively). Number of days with back
pain in the past four weeks were lower after lessons (compared with control
median 21 days: 24 lessons -18, six lessons -10, massage -7) and quality of life
improved significantly. No significant harms were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: One to one lessons in the Alexander technique from registered
teachers have long term benefits for patients with chronic back pain. Six lessons
followed by exercise prescription were nearly as effective as 24 lessons. |
Back Pain -- Therapy |
Not Described |
ND |
Massage therapist |
Massage: 75 (15%);
Alexander Technique-6 lessons: 73 (21%);
Alexander Technique-24 lessons: 73 (16%);
Exercise: 72 (29%);
Exercise + Massage: 72 (22%);
Exercise + Alexander Technique-6 lessons: 71 (20%);
Exercise + Alexander Technique-24 lessons: 71 (21%) |
75 (15%);
73 (21%);
73 (16%);
72 (29%);
72 (22%);
71 (20%);
71 (21%);
72 (17%). |
|
Massage: 6 x ND, 1x/w, 6w + ND;
Alexander Technique-6 lessons: 6 x ND, 2x/w, 2w then 1x/w, 2w + ND;
Alexander Technique-24 lessons: 24 x ND, 2x/w, 6w then 1x/w, 6w then 2x/mos, 8w then 1x at 7 mos, 9 mos + ND;
Exercise: 1-3 x ND, ND, ND + ND;
Exercise + |
|
No |
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (disability): p < 0.001 (between groups) (massage / Control), (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 3 mos, p < 0.05 (between groups) (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 1y; Von Korff Scale (disability): p = Not Significant (between groups) (massage / Control), (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 3 mos, p < 0.001 (between groups) (24 lessons / Control) at 1y; Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: physical): p < 0.001 (between groups) (24 lessons / Control) at 3 mos and 1y; Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: mental): p = Not Significant (between groups) (massage / Control), (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 3 mos and 1y; Deyo Scale (troubleness of pain / quality of life): p < 0.05 (between groups) (massage / Control), (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 3 mos, p < 0.001 (between groups) (24 lessons / Control). |
Massage effective for:
Activity,
Quality of Life. |
Authors report NO AEs occurred |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19096019 |
| F1 |
40 |
| Refid |
2057 |
| Quick Author |
Little, 2008 |
| Author |
P. Little, G. Lewith, F. Webley, M. Evans, A. Beattie, K. Middleton, J. Barnett, K. Ballard, F. Oxford, P. Smith, L. Yardley, S. Hollinghurst and D. Sharp |
| Title |
Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain |
| Publication Date |
2008 |
| Periodical |
BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition) |
| F8 |
vol |
| Volume |
337 |
| F10 |
vol 337 |
| Issue |
7667 |
| F12 |
pages |
| Page Start-End |
438-441 |
| Group |
Group 1 |
| F15 |
pages 438-441 |
| Publication Data |
BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition), vol 337: 7667, pages 438-441 |
| Condition |
Musculoskeletal Pain: Chronic or recurrent back pain |
| Condition (to hide) |
579c (sex = ND) participants with chronic or recurrent back pain (mean age = 46 ± 10.5 yrs) |
| Outcome Measures |
|
| cleaned up results |
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (disability)
Von Korff Scale (disability)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: physical)
Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: mental)
Deyo Scale (troubleness)
|
| Outcome Measures_ |
Activity: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire,
Von Korff Scale, Short Form-36 Health Survey;
Mood: Short Form-36 Health Survey;
Quality of Life: Deyo Scale.
|
| Total Participants |
579 |
| Quality Assignment (SIGN 50) |
2-Acceptable |
| Abstract |
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of lessons in the Alexander technique,
massage therapy, and advice from a doctor to take exercise (exercise
prescription) along with nurse delivered behavioural counseling for patients
with chronic or recurrent back pain.
DESIGN: Factorial randomised trial. Setting 64 general practices in England.
PARTICIPANTS: 579 patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain; 144 were
randomised to normal care, 147 to massage, 144 to six Alexander technique
lessons, and 144 to 24 Alexander technique lessons; half of each of these groups
were randomised to exercise prescription.
INTERVENTIONS: Normal care (control), six sessions of massage, six or 24 lessons
on the Alexander technique, and prescription for exercise from a doctor with
nurse delivered behavioural counselling.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Roland Morris disability score (number of activities
impaired by pain) and number of days in pain.
RESULTS: Exercise and lessons in the Alexander technique, but not massage,
remained effective at one year (compared with control Roland disability score
8.1: massage -0.58, 95% confidence interval -1.94 to 0.77, six lessons -1.40,
-2.77 to -0.03, 24 lessons -3.4, -4.76 to -2.03, and exercise -1.29, -2.25 to
-0.34). Exercise after six lessons achieved 72% of the effect of 24 lessons alone
(Roland disability score -2.98 and -4.14, respectively). Number of days with back
pain in the past four weeks were lower after lessons (compared with control
median 21 days: 24 lessons -18, six lessons -10, massage -7) and quality of life
improved significantly. No significant harms were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: One to one lessons in the Alexander technique from registered
teachers have long term benefits for patients with chronic back pain. Six lessons
followed by exercise prescription were nearly as effective as 24 lessons. |
| Keywords |
Back Pain -- Therapy |
| Power |
Not Described |
| Power1 |
ND |
| Provider Type |
Massage therapist |
| Intervention Description: Number Assigned (Dropout Rate) |
Massage: 75 (15%);
Alexander Technique-6 lessons: 73 (21%);
Alexander Technique-24 lessons: 73 (16%);
Exercise: 72 (29%);
Exercise + Massage: 72 (22%);
Exercise + Alexander Technique-6 lessons: 71 (20%);
Exercise + Alexander Technique-24 lessons: 71 (21%) |
| # Assigned (Dropout Rate)_ |
75 (15%);
73 (21%);
73 (16%);
72 (29%);
72 (22%);
71 (20%);
71 (21%);
72 (17%). |
| double check # assign |
|
| Intervention Description: Dosages |
Massage: 6 x ND, 1x/w, 6w + ND;
Alexander Technique-6 lessons: 6 x ND, 2x/w, 2w then 1x/w, 2w + ND;
Alexander Technique-24 lessons: 24 x ND, 2x/w, 6w then 1x/w, 6w then 2x/mos, 8w then 1x at 7 mos, 9 mos + ND;
Exercise: 1-3 x ND, ND, ND + ND;
Exercise + |
| Intervention Description: Dosages1 |
|
| *Meta-Analysis |
No |
| Relevant Results _ |
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (disability): p < 0.001 (between groups) (massage / Control), (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 3 mos, p < 0.05 (between groups) (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 1y; Von Korff Scale (disability): p = Not Significant (between groups) (massage / Control), (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 3 mos, p < 0.001 (between groups) (24 lessons / Control) at 1y; Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: physical): p < 0.001 (between groups) (24 lessons / Control) at 3 mos and 1y; Short Form-36 Health Survey (Quality of Life: mental): p = Not Significant (between groups) (massage / Control), (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 3 mos and 1y; Deyo Scale (troubleness of pain / quality of life): p < 0.05 (between groups) (massage / Control), (6 lessons / Control), (12 lessons / Control) at 3 mos, p < 0.001 (between groups) (24 lessons / Control). |
| Conclusions |
Massage effective for:
Activity,
Quality of Life. |
| Adverse Events |
Authors report NO AEs occurred |
| PubMed Link |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19096019 |
|