Massage for neck pain contrasted against standard (non-surgical) treatment: A systematic review update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review update was to determine the average effect of massage for adults with neck pain (NP) contrasted against another standard treatment. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials comparing massage to standard treatments were included; placebo/no treatment comparisons were excluded. Databases were searched (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ICL, trial registries) from inception to Oct-1-2023. We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures: rated Risk of Bias 1.0, abstracted mean differences (MD), meta-analysed data, and rated the level of certainty (GRADE). RESULTS: We included 42 studies (2656 participants; 67% high RoB) contrasted against 10 unique treatments. Trials studied ages 18-70, 70% female, and mean pain severity 52 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Very-low to moderate-certainty evidence for pain (MD VAS 0-100, 95% CI) at ≤12 weeks follow-up follows. The pre-stated minimal important difference margin was 10 VAS points. Massage was Massage may not increase risks of minor adverse events: RR 0.37 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.61). CONCLUSION: For subacute-chronic NP, pain reduction varied by comparison. The evidence was limited by imprecision and high RoB. Focused planning for adequately dosed longer-term trials is needed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".