Effectiveness of massage therapy for subacute low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Randomized trial comparing traditional Chinese medical acupuncture, therapeutic massage, and self-care education for chronic low back pain. Lower back pain is reduced and range of motion increased after massage therapy. Effectiveness of four conservative treatments for subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Functional outcomes of low back pain: comparison of four treatment groups in a randomized controlled trial. Importance of modes of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic nociceptive low back pain. Acupuncture for chronic low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled study with long-term follow-up. A prospective randomized three-week trial of spinal manipulation, transcutaneous muscle stimulation, massage and corset in the treatment of subacute low back pain. [Acupuncture massage vs Swedish massage and individual exercise vs group exercise in low back pain sufferers--a randomized controlled clinical trial in a 2 x 2 factorial design].
The effectiveness of massage therapy for low-back pain has not been documented. This randomized controlled trial compared comprehensive massage therapy (soft-tissue manipulation, remedial exercise and posture education), 2 components of massage therapy and placebo in the treatment of subacute (between 1 week and 8 months) low-back pain.
                Subjects with subacute low-back pain were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: comprehensive massage therapy (n = 25), soft-tissue manipulation only (n = 25), remedial exercise with posture education only (n = 22) or a placebo of sham laser therapy (n = 26). Each subject received 6 treatments within approximately 1 month. Outcome measures obtained at baseline, after treatment and at 1-month follow-up consisted of the Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (PPI and PRI), the State Anxiety Index and the Modified Schober test (lumbar range of motion).
                Of the 107 subjects who passed screening, 98 (92%) completed post-treatment tests and 91 (85%) completed follow-up tests. Statistically significant differences were noted after treatment and at follow-up. The comprehensive massage therapy group had improved function (mean RDQ score 1.54 v. 2.86-6.5, p < 0.001), less intense pain (mean PPI score 0.42 v. 1.18-1.75, p < 0.001) and a decrease in the quality of pain (mean PRI score 2.29 v. 4.55-7.71, p = 0.006) compared with the other 3 groups. Clinical significance was evident for the comprehensive massage therapy group and the soft-tissue manipulation group on the measure of function. At 1-month follow-up 63% of subjects in the comprehensive massage therapy group reported no pain as compared with 27% of the soft-tissue manipulation group, 14% of the remedial exercise group and 0% of the sham laser therapy group.
                Patients with subacute low-back pain were shown to benefit from massage therapy, as regulated by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario and delivered by experienced massage therapists. Because the value of popular forms of alternative care for chronic back pain remains uncertain, we compared the effectiveness of acupuncture, therapeutic massage, and self-care education for persistent back pain.
                We randomized 262 patients aged 20 to 70 years who had persistent back pain to receive Traditional Chinese Medical acupuncture (n = 94), therapeutic massage (n = 78), or self-care educational materials (n = 90). Up to 10 massage or acupuncture visits were permitted over 10 weeks. Symptoms (0-10 scale) and dysfunction (0-23 scale) were assessed by telephone interviewers masked to treatment group. Follow-up was available for 95% of patients after 4, 10, and 52 weeks, and none withdrew for adverse effects.
                Treatment groups were compared after adjustment for prerandomization covariates using an intent-to-treat analysis. At 10 weeks, massage was superior to self-care on the symptom scale (3.41 vs 4.71, respectively; P =.01) and the disability scale (5.88 vs 8.92, respectively; P<.001). Massage was also superior to acupuncture on the disability scale (5.89 vs 8.25, respectively; P =.01). After 1 year, massage was not better than self-care but was better than acupuncture (symptom scale: 3.08 vs 4.74, respectively; P =.002; dysfunction scale: 6.29 vs 8.21, respectively; P =.05). The massage group used the least medications (P<.05) and had the lowest costs of subsequent care.
                Therapeutic massage was effective for persistent low back pain, apparently providing long-lasting benefits. Traditional Chinese Medical acupuncture was relatively ineffective. Massage might be an effective alternative to conventional medical care for persistent back pain. A randomized between-groups design evaluated massage therapy versus relaxation for chronic low back pain.
                Treatment effects were evaluated for reducing pain, depression, anxiety and stress hormones, and sleeplessness and for improving trunk range of motion associated with chronic low back pain. SUMMARY of
                Twenty-four adults (M age=39.6 years) with low back pain of nociceptive origin with a duration of at least 6 months participated in the study. The groups did not differ on age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity or gender.
                Twenty-four adults (12 women) with lower back pain were randomly assigned to a massage therapy or a progressive muscle relaxation group. Sessions were 30 minutes long twice a week for five weeks. On the first and last day of the 5-week study participants completed questionnaires, provided a urine sample and were assessed for range of motion.
                By the end of the study, the massage therapy group, as compared to the relaxation group, reported experiencing less pain, depression, anxiety and improved sleep. They also showed improved trunk and pain flexion performance, and their serotonin and dopamine levels were higher.
                Massage therapy is effective in reducing pain, stress hormones and symptoms associated with chronic low back pain.
                Adults (M age=39.6 years) with low back pain with a duration of at least 6 months received two 30-min massage or relaxation therapy sessions per week for 5 weeks. Participants receiving massage therapy reported experiencing less pain, depression, anxiety and their sleep had improved. They also showed improved trunk and pain flexion performance, and their serotonin and dopamine levels were higher. A randomized, assessor-blinded clinical trial was conducted.
                To investigate the relative effectiveness of three manual treatments and back school for patients with subacute low back pain.
                Literature comparing the relative effectiveness of specific therapies for low back pain is limited.
                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.
                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.
                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. The revised Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire (ROLBPQ) and Roland-Morris Activity Scale (RMAS) were compared in a randomized controlled trial of chiropractic manipulation, stroking massage, corset and transcutaneous muscular stimulation (TMS). This trial employed specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, including nonspecific low back pain for a duration of 3 wk to 6 months and ages between 18 and 55. We had the opportunity to ask 85 patients to answer the questionnaires. Sixty-three patients, who completed the initial and final evaluations, were used for data analysis. Both ROLBPQ and RMAS showed good internal consistency with alpha coefficients ranging from .77 to .93. Both instruments showed a significant difference between the chiropractic manipulation and massage groups (p less than .05). RMAS was able to further show significant differences between the chiropractic manipulation and TMS groups, and between the corset and massage groups, but the ROLBPQ failed to do so. RMAS also showed that chiropractic manipulation had a better but nonsignificant result than corset, possibly due to insufficient sample size and/or duration of treatment. We conclude that both instruments are reliable for measuring low back pain disability, and chiropractic manipulation has a superior short-term benefit when compared to stroking massage and TMS in subacute low back pain patients. In addition, it appears that RMAS is preferable in a clinical trial situation for subacute low back pain because it is more sensitive than ROLBPQ to detect changes. A controlled study of different modes of acupuncture stimulation was conducted on patients fulfilling clinical criteria for chronic low back pain of nociceptive origin. Forty patients were randomly entered into the study. Thirty had three trial treatments with manual stimulation of needles (MS), electrical low frequency stimulation at 2 Hz (LF), and high-frequency stimulation at 80 Hz (HF), and then continued treatment with the mode they felt most benefitted them. Ten patients were put on the waiting list for treatment but served as the untreated control group. The results were evaluated after 6 weeks and at 6 months for: activity related to pain; mobility; verbal descriptors of pain and the patient's subjective assessment of his condition. After 6 weeks, patients receiving treatment showed significant improvement (P < 0.05 to P < 0.001) on three of the four measures compared to the untreated controls. After 6 months a similar measure of significant improvement was seen in patients continuing with low-frequency (LF) acupuncture, but not in those groups continuing with manual stimulation (MS) or high-frequency (HF) acupuncture. The results suggest that 2 Hz electrical stimulation is the mode of choice when using acupuncture in the treatment of chronic nociceptive low back pain. The authors sought to determine whether a series of needle acupuncture treatments produced long-term relief of chronic low back pain.
                A blinded placebo-controlled study with an independent observer. The patients were randomized to receive manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture, or active placebo (mock transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation). Subjects were examined and monitored by an investigator who was blinded to the treatment given.
                A tertiary-level pain clinic at a Swedish university hospital.
                Fifty consecutive patients (33 women, 17 men; mean age, 49.8 years) with chronic low back pain (mean pain duration, 9.5 years) and without rhizopathy or history of acupuncture treatment were included in the study.
                Treatments were given once per week for 8 weeks. Two further treatments were given during the follow-up assessment period of 6 months or longer.
                The independent observer made a global assessment of the patients 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. The patients kept pain diaries to score pain intensity twice daily, analgesic intake, and quality of sleep daily, and activity level weekly.
                At the 1-month independent assessment, 16 of 34 patients in the acupuncture groups and 2 of 16 patients in the placebo group showed improvement (p <0.05). At the 6-month follow-up assessment, 14 of 34 patients in the acupuncture groups and 2 of 16 patients in the placebo group showed improvement (p <0.05). A significant decrease in pain intensities occurred at 1 and 3 months in the acupuncture groups compared with the placebo group. There was a significant improvement in return to work, quality of sleep, and analgesic intake in subjects treated with acupuncture.
                The authors found a long-term pain-relieving effect of needle acupuncture compared with true placebo in some patients with chronic nociceptive low back pain. A randomized prospective trial of manipulation, massage, corset and transcutaneous muscle stimulation (TMS) was conducted in patients with subacute low back pain.
                The authors determined the relative efficacy of chiropractic treatment to massage, corset, and TMS.
                Although all of these treatments are used for subacute low back pain treatment, there have been few comparative trials using objective outcome criteria. Patients were enrolled for a period of 3 weeks. They were evaluated once a week by questionnaires, visual analog scale, range of motion, maximum voluntary extension effort, straight leg raising and Biering-Sorensen fatigue test. The dropout rate was highest in the muscle stimulation and corset groups and lowest in the manipulation group. Rates of full compliance did not differ significantly across treatments. A measure of patient confidence was greatest in the manipulation group.
                After 3 weeks, the manipulation group scored the greatest improvements in flexion and pain while the massage group had the best extension effort and fatigue time, and the muscle stimulation group the best extension.
                None of the changes in physical outcome measures (range of motion, fatigue, strength or pain) were significantly different between any of the groups. Rehabilitation programs for low back pain (LBP) almost always contain massage and exercise therapy in one form or another.
                This study aimed to quantify the effectiveness of therapeutic 'Acupuncture' massage (APM; i.e. tonic stimulation of entire meridians) according to Penzel versus Swedish massage (SM) and individual medical exercises (IE) versus group exercises (GE) in LBP sufferers.
                109 patients participating in a complex in-patient rehabilitation program were randomised to four groups in a 2 x 2 factorial design. Main outcome measures were functional ability/disability (Functional Questionnaire Hanover, FFbH) and pain intensity (10 cm visual analogue scale, VAS). Pre/post changes were evaluated by means of 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Additionally, lumbar motility was measured by a 2-inclinometer technique.
                Baseline mean FFbH score was 66 (SD = 18)%, mean pain intensity on VAS was 4.5 (SD = 2.4) cm. Lumbar flexion and extension were 49 (13) and 13 (7). Because of some differences between groups at baseline, group-standardized outcomes were used for analysis. APM showed beneficial effects for both disability and pain compared with SM (group differences: delta FFbH 7.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5-11.6], p = 0.003; delta VAS 0.8 cm [95% CI: 2-15], p = 0.024). Standardized response means were SRMFFbH = 0.5 and SRMVAS = 0.8 for APM, as opposed to SRMFFbH = -0.01 and SRMVAS = 0.4 for SM. Neither significant group differences between both exercise groups [delta FFbH -0.5% (95% CI -5.2 to 4.2); delta Vas 0.4 cm (95% CI 0.3 to 1.1)] nor significant interactions between medical exercise and massage were found.
                Given the fact that even the treatments considered to be the best available achieve at best moderate effects, the observed effect sizes with APM are promising and warrant further investigation in replication studies. In contrast to common view, no superiority of individual versus group exercises could be found in the present study.
Massage might be beneficial for patients with subacute and chronic non-specific low-back pain, especially when combined with exercises and education. The evidence suggests that acupuncture massage is more effective than classic massage, but this need confirmation. More studies are needed to confirm these conclusions, to assess the impact of massage on return-to-work, and to determine cost-effectiveness of massage as an intervention for low-back pain.