Effectiveness of massage therapy for subacute low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial

M Preyde, M Preyde

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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).

Results: 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.

Interpretation: 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.

References

    1. Pain. 1981 Aug;11(1):85-92
    1. Pain. 1980 Feb;8(1):11-19
    1. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1982 Oct;50(5):781-2
    1. Phys Ther. 1983 Apr;63(4):489-93
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Mar;8(2):141-4
    1. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987 Nov 7;295(6607):1197-8
    1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988 Dec;69(12):1044-53
    1. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1991;23(1):3-10
    1. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992 Jan;15(1):4-9
    1. Stat Med. 1993 May 15;12(9):867-79
    1. J Rheumatol. 1994 Sep;21(9):1694-8
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Nov 15;19(22):2571-7
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Sep 1;20(17):1899-908; discussion 1909
    1. J Clin Oncol. 1997 Mar;15(3):1261-71
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Dec 15;21(24):2860-71; discussion 2872-3
    1. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 1997 Mar;6(1):23-31
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Sep 15;22(18):2128-56
    1. N Engl J Med. 1998 Oct 8;339(15):1021-9
    1. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999 Jan;17(1):65-9
    1. Phys Ther. 1999 Apr;79(4):384-96
    1. Med Care. 1999 Jun;37(6 Suppl):JS187-205
    1. Nat Cell Biol. 2000 Mar;2(3):156-62
    1. CMAJ. 2000 Jun 27;162(13):1821-2
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1971 Jul;30(4):381-6
    1. Int J Obes. 1978;2(2):99-112
    1. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1982 Aug;50(4):562-75

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe