MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236018341 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001929

Massage for low-back pain

2002· review· en· W4236018341 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea D Furlan, Lucie Brosseau, Marta Imamura, Emma Irvin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaInstitute for Work & Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMassageMedicineCINAHLPhysical therapyMEDLINERandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPopulationLow back painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineSurgeryPsychological interventionInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern societies. Proponents of massage therapy claim it can minimize pain and disability, and speed return to normal function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of massage therapy for non-specific low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Healthstar, CINAHL and Dissertation abstracts from 1966 to 1999 with no language restrictions. References in the included studies and in reviews of the literature were also screened. Contact with content experts and massage associations were also made. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review included randomized, quasi-randomized or controlled clinical trials that investigated the use of any type of massage (using the hands or a mechanical device) as a treatment for nonspecific low back pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer applied the selection criteria and extracted the data. Two reviewers (one blinded to authors, institutions and journals) independently assessed the quality of each trial. A qualitative analysis (best-evidence synthesis) was performed due to clinical heterogeneity among the included trials and insufficient data reported. MAIN RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Two trials were of high and two of low methodological quality. None evaluated massage as the main intervention. Rather, it was the control intervention in studies evaluating manipulation, electrical stimulation, and a lumbar corset. There is limited evidence showing that massage is less effective than manipulation immediately after the first session and moderate evidence showing it is less effective than TENS during the course of sessions in relieving pain and improving activity. At the completion of treatment and at 3 weeks after discharge there is no difference among massage and manipulation, electrical stimulation or corsets, but this evidence is limited. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on the studies reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to recommend massage as a stand-alone treatment for non-specific low back pain. There is a need for high quality controlled trials to further evaluate the effects of massage for this condition.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.045

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207