Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deep Transverse Frictional Massage Combined with Conventional Physiotherapy for Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tendinopathies are common musculoskeletal disorders characterized by pain and functional impairment, often requiring therapeutic interventions for effective management. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of deep transverse frictional massage (DTFM) combined with conventional therapy for the treatment of tendinopathies. Methods: A study search of electronic databases including MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases, was conducted for randomized controlled trials, pilot study, and comparative study design comparing the combined application of DTFM with conventional physiotherapy (e.g., exercise, stretching, or modalities) to conventional therapy alone for the treatment of tendinopathies. Inclusion criteria were studies that reported clinical outcomes such as pain reduction and disability. Data extraction was performed independently by reviewers. A meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to estimate the pooled effect size, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias approach. Results: A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. The combined treatment group (DTFM + conventional therapy) showed significant improvements in pain reduction (standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): −14.50, p < 0.05) and elbow (SMD = −2.67, 95% CI: −3.38 to −1.96, p < 0.05) compared to conventional therapy alone. No significant adverse effects were reported. Conclusion: The findings suggest that DTFM, when combined with conventional therapy, offers significant benefits over conventional therapy alone in the management of tendinopathies, particularly in reducing pain and improving function. The exact physiological mechanisms through which DTFM works in combination with conventional therapies remain unclear. Research into how DTFM influences tissue healing, collagen remodeling, or pain reduction pathways could provide more insights into its effectiveness and guide its integration into treatment protocols.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".