Massage for Low Back Pain: An Updated Systematic Review Within the Framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group

Furlan, AD; Imamura, M; Dryden, T; Irvin, E

Abstract

Study Design. Systematic Review.

Objectives. To assess the effects of massage therapy for nonspecific low back pain.

Summary of Background Data. Low back pain is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. Proponents of massage therapy claim it can minimize pain and disability, and speed return to normal function.

Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from their beginning to May 2008. We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, issue 3), HealthSTAR and Dissertation abstracts up to 2006. There were no language restrictions. References in the included studies and in reviews of the literature were screened. The studies had to be randomized or quasi-randomized trials investigating the use of any type of massage (using the hands or a mechanical device) as a treatment for nonspecific low back pain. Two review authors selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group, and extracted the data using standardized forms. Both qualitative and meta-analyses were performed.

Results. Thirteen randomized trials were included. Eight had a high risk and 5 had a low risk of bias. One study was published in German and the rest in English. Massage was compared to an inert therapy (sham treatment) in 2 studies that showed that massage was superior for pain and function on both short- and long-term follow-ups. In 8 studies, massage was compared to other active treatments. They showed that massage was similar to exercises, and massage was superior to joint mobilization, relaxation therapy, physical therapy, acupuncture, and self-care education. One study showed that reflexology on the feet had no effect on pain and functioning. The beneficial effects of massage in patients with chronic low back pain lasted at least 1 year after the end of the treatment. Two studies compared 2 different techniques of massage. One concluded that acupuncture massage produces better results than classic (Swedish) massage and another concluded that Thai massage produces similar results to classic (Swedish) massage.

Conclusion. Massage might be beneficial for patients with subacute and chronic nonspecific 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.

Spine: 15 July 2009 – Volume 34 – Issue 16 – pp 1669-1684 - abstract

doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ad7bd6

Full text available in  through MTABC member only website (link) under the research tab and then library.

Filed under: Exercise therapy, Lumbar spine, Massage, Patient education, Topic review , Low back, Lumbar spine, massage therapy, nonspecific low back pain, pain, Systematic review

Risk Factors for Persistent Problems Following Whiplash Injury: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

DM Walton, J Pretty, JC MacDermid, RW Teasell

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: Whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) is the most common reported injury following motor vehicle accident. Evidence for prognosis and intervention are difficult to interpret due to differences in inception times, outcomes used, and sample heterogeneity. METHODS: An extensive literature search was conducted to identify published studies of prognosis following whiplash. Rigorous inclusion criteria were applied to allow for meaningful results to be drawn. Data were extracted, transformed where necessary, and pooled to allow estimation of the odds ratio for any factor with at least 3 data points in the literature.

RESULTS: From 11 cohorts (n = 3193), 25 factors were identified with at least 3 data points in the existing literature. Of these, 9 were found to be significant predictors based on the odds ratio and confidence limits: no postsecondary education, female gender, history of previous neck pain,baseline neck pain intensity greater than 55/100, presence of neck pain at baseline, presence of headache at baseline, catastrophizing, WAD grade 2 or 3, and no seat belt in use at time of collision. Neck pain intensity, WAD grade, headache, and no postsecondary education were robust to publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS: Using a rigorous process for the identification and extraction of data from a homogenous subset of the prognostic WAD literature, we were able to identify several factors for which information is easy to collect clinically and could provide clinicians with a good sense of prognosis following whiplash injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 1a.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39(5):334-350, Epub 18 July 2008. View Full Article

doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2765

Filed under: Cervical, Prognosis, Whiplash Injuries , Cervical spine, neck, Prognosis, WAD

Measurement Properties of the Neck Disability Index: A Systematic Review

JC MacDermid, DM Walton, S Avery, A Blanchard, E Etruw, C McAlpine, CH Goldsmith

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of clinical measurement. OBJECTIVE: To find and synthesize evidence on the psychometric properties and usefulness of the neck disability index (NDI). BACKGROUND: The NDI is the most commonly used outcome measure for neck pain, and a synthesis of knowledge should provide a deeper understanding of its use and limitations. METHODS AND MEASURES: Using a standard search strategy (1966 to September 2008) and 4 databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and PsychInfo), a structured search was conducted and supplemented by web and hand searching. In total, 37 published primary studies, 3 reviews, and 1 in-press paper were analyzed. Pairs of raters conducted data extraction and critical appraisal using structured tools. Ranking of quality and descriptive synthesis were performed.

RESULTS: Horizon estimation suggested the potential for 1 missed paper. The agreement between raters on quality assessments was high(kappa = 0.82). Half of the studies reached a quality level greater than 70%. Failures to report clear psychometric objectives/hypotheses or to rationalize the sample size were the most common design flaws. Studies often focused on less clinically applicable properties, like construct validity or group reliability, than transferable data, like known group differences or absolute reliability (standard error of measurement [SEM] or minimum detectable change [MDC]). Most studies suggest that the NDI has acceptable reliability, although intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) range from 0.50 to 0.98. Longer test intervals and the definition of stable can influence reliability estimates. A number of high-quality published (Korean, Dutch, Spanish, French, Brazilian Portuguese) and commercially supported translations are available. The NDI is considered a 1-dimensional measure that can be interpreted as an interval scale. Some studies question these assumptions. The MDC is around 5/50 for uncomplicated neck pain and up to 10/50 for cervical radiculopathy. The reported clinically important difference (CID) is inconsistent across different studies ranging from 5/50 to 19/50. The NDI is strongly correlated (>0.70) to a number of similar indices and moderately related to both physical and mental aspects of general health.

CONCLUSION: The NDI has sufficient support and usefulness to retain its current status as the most commonly used self-report measure for neck pain. More studies of CID in different clinical populations and the relationship to subjective/work/function categories are required.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39(5):400-417.- full text PDF

doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2930

Filed under: Cervical, Outcome measure , Cervical spine, Outcome measure, reliability

Insoles for prevention and treatment of back pain

Tali Sahar, Matan J Cohen, Vered Ne’eman et al

Background

There is lack of theoretical and clinical knowledge of the use of insoles for prevention or treatment of back pain. The high incidence of back pain and the popularity of shoe insoles call for a systematic review of this practice.

Objectives

To determine the effectiveness of shoe insoles in the prevention and treatment of non-specific back pain compared to placebo, no intervention, or other interventions.

Search strategy

We searched the following databases: The Cochrane Back Group Trials Register and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to October 2008; reviewed reference lists in review articles, guidelines and in the included trials; conducted citation tracking; contacted individuals with expertise in this domain.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that examined the use of customized or non-customized insoles, for the prevention or treatment of back pain, compared to placebo, no intervention or other interventions. Study outcomes had to include at least one of the following: self-reported incidence or physician diagnosis of back pain; pain intensity; duration of back pain; absenteeism; functional status. Studies of insoles designed to treat limb length inequality were excluded.

Data collection and analysis

One review author conducted the searches and blinded the retrieved references for authors, institution and journal. Two review authors independently selected the relevant articles. Two different review authors independently assessed the methodological quality and clinical relevance and extracted the data from each trial using a standardized form.

Main results

Six randomised controlled trials met inclusion criteria: Three examined prevention of back pain (2061 participants) and three examined mixed populations (256 participants) without being clear whether they were aimed at primary or secondary prevention or treatment. No treatment trials were found. There is strong evidence that the use of insoles does not prevent back pain. There is limited evidence that insoles alleviate back pain or adversely shift the pain to the lower extremities.

Limitations
This review largely reflects limitations of the literature, including low quality studies with heterogeneous interventions and outcome measures, poor blinding and poor reporting.

Authors’ conclusions

There is strong evidence that insoles are not effective for the prevention of back pain. The current evidence on insoles as treatment for low-back pain does not allow any conclusions.

High quality trials are required for stronger conclusions.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD005275.- full text

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005275.pub2.

Filed under: Lumbar spine, Spine, Topic review

Nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an american pain society clinical practice guideline

Chou R, Atlas SJ, Stanos SP, et al

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess benefits and harms of nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back and radicular pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although use of certain interventional therapies is common or increasing, there is also uncertainty or controversy about their efficacy.

METHODS: Electronic database searches on Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases were conducted through July 2008 to identify randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of local injections, botulinum toxin injection, prolotherapy, epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, therapeutic medial branch block, sacroiliac joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, chemonucleolysis, radiofrequency denervation, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation, Coblation nucleoplasty, and spinal cord stimulation. All relevant studies were methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers using criteria developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group (for trials) and by Oxman (for systematic reviews). A qualitative synthesis of results was performed using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force.

RESULTS: For sciatica or prolapsed lumbar disc with radiculopathy, we found good evidence that chemonucleolysis is moderately superior to placebo injection but inferior to surgery, and fair evidence that epidural steroid injection is moderately effective for short-term (but not long-term) symptom relief. We found fair evidence that spinal cord stimulation is moderately effective for failed back surgery syndrome with persistent radiculopathy, though device-related complications are common. We found good or fair evidence that prolotherapy, facet joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, and percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation are not effective. Insufficient evidence exists to reliably evaluate other interventional therapies.

CONCLUSION: Few nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain have been shown to be effective in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Spine. 2009 May 1;34(10):1078-93  – abstract

Full text available in  through MTABC member only website (link) under the research tab and then library.

Filed under: Lumbar spine, Topic review, therapies , interventional, Low back, nonsurgical, radicular pain, therapies

Randomized Trial of Therapeutic Massage for Chronic Neck Pain

Sherman, Karen J. PhD, MPH; Cherkin, Daniel C. PhD; Hawkes, Rene J. BS;

Abstract

Objectives: Little is known about the effectiveness of therapeutic massage, one of the most popular complementary medical treatments for neck pain. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate whether therapeutic massage is more beneficial than a self-care book for patients with chronic neck pain.

Methods: Sixty-four such patients were randomized to receive up to 10 massages over 10 weeks or a self-care book. Follow-up telephone interviews after 4, 10, and 26 weeks assessed outcomes including dysfunction and symptoms. Log-binomial regression was used to assess whether there were differences in the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful improvements in dysfunction and symptoms (ie, >5-point improvement on the Neck Disability Index; >30% improvement from baseline on the symptom bothersomeness scale) at each time point.

Results: At 10 weeks, more participants randomized to massage experienced clinically significant improvement on the Neck Disability Index [39% vs. 14% of book group; relative risk (RR)=2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-7.5] and on the symptom bothersomeness scale (55% vs. 25% of book group; RR=2.2; 95% CI, 1.04-4.2). After 26 weeks, massage group members tended to be more likely to report improved function (RR=1.8; 95% CI, 0.97-3.5), but not symptom bothersomeness (RR=1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.0). Mean differences between groups were strongest at 4 weeks and not evident by 26 weeks. No serious adverse experiences were reported.

Conclusions: This study suggests that massage is safe and may have clinical benefits for treating chronic neck pain at least in the short term. A larger trial is warranted to confirm these results.

The Clinical Journal of Pain:

March/April 2009 – Volume 25 – Issue 3 – pp 233-238 – abstract

doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31818b7912

Filed under: Cervical, Conservative therapies, Massage, Spine

Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Back Pain Utilization Report

Santaguida PL, Gross A, Busse J, Gagnier J, Walker K, Bhandari M, Raina P.

Objectives: This systematic review was undertaken to evaluate which complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies are being used for persons with back pain in the United States.

Data Sources: MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, CINAHL^® and Cochrane Central^® and a variety of CAM specific databases were searched from 1990 to November 2007. A grey literature search was also undertaken, particularly for clinical practice guidelines (CPG) related to CAM.

Review Methods: Standard systematic review methodology was employed. Eligibility criteria included English studies of adults with back pain, and a predefined list of CAM therapies.

Results: A total of 103 publications were evaluated; of these 29 did not present CAM therapy use stratified for back pain. There were a total of 65 utilization studies, 43 of which were American. Four publications evaluated the concurrent use of four or more CAM therapies and these suggest that chiropractic/manipulation is the most frequently used modality followed by massage and acupuncture. A limited number of publications evaluated utilization rates within multiple regions of the back and show that CAM was used least for treating the thoracic spine and most for the low back. However, rates of use of massage were similar for neck and lower back regions. Concurrent use of different CAM or conventional therapies was not well reported.

From 11 eligible CPG, only one (for electro-acupuncture) provided recommendations for frequency of use for low back pain of all acuity levels.

Eighteen cost publications were reviewed and all but one publication (cost-effectiveness) were cost identification studies. There is limited information on the impact of insurance coverage on costs and utilization specific to back pain.

Conclusions: There are few studies evaluating the relative utilization of various CAM therapies for back pain. For those studies evaluating utilization of individual CAM therapies, the specific characteristics of the therapy, the providers, and the clinical presentation of the back pain patients were not adequately detailed; nor was the overlap with other CAM or conventional treatments.

Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 177 – full text

Filed under: Alternative therapies, Manual therapy, Massage, Spine

Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline

R Chou,L Hoyt Huffman

Background: Many nonpharmacologic therapies are available for treatment of low back pain.

Purpose: To assess benefits and harms of acupuncture, back schools, psychological therapies, exercise therapy, functional restoration, interdisciplinary therapy, massage, physical therapies (interferential therapy, low-level laser therapy, lumbar supports, shortwave diathermy, superficial heat, traction, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasonography), spinal manipulation, and yoga for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain).

Data Sources: English-language studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE (through November 2006) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2006, Issue 4). These electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and additional citations suggested by experts.

Study Selection: Systematic reviews and randomized trials of 1 or more of the preceding therapies for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain) that reported pain outcomes, back-specific function, general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction.

Data Extraction: We abstracted information about study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and adverse events. To grade methodological quality, we used the Oxman criteria for systematic reviews and the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for individual trials.

Data Synthesis: We found good evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise, spinal manipulation, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are all moderately effective for chronic or subacute (>4 weeks’ duration) low back pain. Benefits over placebo, sham therapy, or no treatment averaged 10 to 20 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale, 2 to 4 points on the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, or a standardized mean difference of 0.5 to 0.8. We found fair evidence that acupuncture, massage, yoga (Viniyoga), and functional restoration are also effective for chronic low back pain. For acute low back pain (<4 weeks’ duration), the only nonpharmacologic therapies with evidence of efficacy are superficial heat (good evidence for moderate benefits) and spinal manipulation (fair evidence for small to moderate benefits). Although serious harms seemed to be rare, data on harms were poorly reported. No trials addressed optimal sequencing of therapies, and methods for tailoring therapy to individual patients are still in early stages of development. Evidence is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of therapies for sciatica.

Limitations: Our primary source of data was systematic reviews. We included non–English-language trials onl

Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;147:492-504. – full text

Filed under: Conservative therapies, Lumbar spine, Spine, Treatment guidelines

Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease

L Madigan, AR Vaccaro, LR Spector, R Alden Milam

Symptomatic lumbar degenerative disk disease, or discogenic back pain, is difficult to treat. Patients often report transverse low back pain that radiates into the sacroiliac joints. Radicularor claudicatory symptoms are generally absent unless there is concomitant nerve compression. Physical examination findings are often unremarkable. Radiographic examination may revealdisk space narrowing, end-plate sclerosis, or vacuum phenomenon in the disk; magnetic resonance imaging is useful for revealing hydration of the disk, annular bulging, or lumbar spine end-plate (Modic) changes in the adjacent vertebral bodies. The use of diskography as a confirmatory study remains controversial. Recent prospective, randomized trials and meta-analyses of the literature have helped expand what is known about degenerative disk disease. In most patients with low back pain, symptoms resolve without surgical intervention; physical therapy and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the cornerstones of nonsurgical treatment. Intradiskal electrothermal treatment has not been shown to be effective, and arthrodesis remains controversial for the treatment of discogenic back pain. Nucleus replacement and motion-sparing technology are too new to have demonstrated long-term data regarding their efficacy.

Approximately 70% to 85% of adults will be affected by low back pain (LBP) at some point during their lifetimes.1,2 Numerous anatomic sites can be responsible for the pain, and accurate diagnosis is often difficult. Degenerative disk disease (DDD), internal disk disruption, lumbar disk herniation, and facet joint arthritis, as well as intra-abdominal pathology, are allpotential causes of LBP. Patients with DDD or discogenic back pain can present with aconstellation of symptoms that range from benign LBP to excruciating back pain with lower extremity symptoms. Risk factors for LBP, such as jobs requiring heavy lifting, use of a jackhammer or machine tools, or the operation of motor vehicles, have been identified in the literature.3 Continued degeneration of the affected disk can lead to secondary problems such as degenerative spondylolisthesis, lumbar stenosis, and facet arthrosis.

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2009;17:102-111 – abstract

Filed under: Conservative therapies, Lumbar spine, Surgery, Topic review

A systematic literature review of nonsurgical treatment in adult scoliosis.

Everett CR, Patel RK.

STUDY DESIGN.: A formal systematic review of the literature for conservative treatment of adult deformity was performed.                                                                                              OBJECTIVE.: To evaluate evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of proposed conservative treatment options in adult deformity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Adult deformity is a major demographic health issue in the geriatric population in both the United States and the world communities. Surgeons are often very conservative in the treatment of adult scoliosis because of the complication rates associated with the surgeries and the marginal bone quality endemic to this population. A prerequisite to surgical intervention is usually failure of all appropriate conservative care. There is currently a lack of consensus on the most efficacious conservative treatments for adult deformity.                                                    METHODS.: A systematic review of clinical studies; using the key terms of adult or degenerative and scoliosis combined with any of the following: bracing, casting, physical therapy, chiropractic, and injections for treatment. The database inclusions were PubMed, OVID, and CINAHL. Articles were excluded if the primary patient populations were adolescents or the treatment options performed were primarily surgical. The methodology of the studies was graded and the evidence was classified into 1 of 5 levels based on study types. Based on this, a treatment recommendation was determined.                                            RESULTS.: There is indeterminate, Level III/IV evidence on the effectiveness of any conservative care option. Specifically, there is Level IV evidence on the role of physical therapy, chiropractic care, and bracing. There is Level III evidence for injections in the conservative treatment of adult deformity. There is insufficient research for a treatment recommendation beyond Level 2c very weak evidence, but the available literature is supportive of further clinical research in conservative care as a treatment in adult deformity.                                                                                                                                CONCLUSION.: Conservative care in general may be a helpful option in the care of adult deformity, but evidence for this is lacking. Unfortunately, no treatment option within conservative care has support within the literature as a preferred solution. Basic clinical research at any level would be helpful to further clarify the options.

Spine. 2007 Sep 1;32(19 Suppl):S130-4.- abstract

Full text available in  through MTABC member only website (link) under the research tab and then library.

DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318134ea88

Filed under: Conservative therapies, Scoliosis, Spine, Uncategorized