BACKGROUND CONTEXT Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies. PURPOSE The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. METHODS We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912. RESULTS Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=−0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.47 to −0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=−0.33, 95% CI −0.63 to −0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=−0.43, 95% CI −0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=−0.86, 95% CI −1.27 to −0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=−0.20, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=−0.10, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described. CONCLUSION There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

ObjectivesTo assess the quantity and quality of randomised, sham-controlled studies of surgery and invasive procedures and estimate the treatment-specific and non-specific effects of those procedures.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), PILOTS, PsycInfo, DoD Biomedical Research, clinicaltrials.gov, NLM catalog and NIH Grantee Publications Database from their inception through January 2015.Study selectionWe included randomised controlled trials of surgery and invasive procedures that penetrated the skin or an orifice and had a parallel sham procedure for comparison.Data extraction and analysisThree authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies reporting continuous outcomes were pooled and the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs was calculated using a random effects model for difference between true and sham groups.Results55 studies (3574 patients) were identified meeting inclusion criteria; 39 provided sufficient data for inclusion in the main analysis (2902 patients). The overall SMD of the continuous primary outcome between treatment/sham-control groups was 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.49; p<0.00001; I2=67%). The SMD for surgery versus sham surgery was non-significant for pain-related conditions (n=15, SMD=0.13, p=0.08), marginally significant for studies on weight loss (n=10, SMD=0.52, p=0.05) and significant for gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) studies (n=5, SMD=0.65, p<0.001) and for other conditions (n=8, SMD=0.44, p=0.004). Mean improvement in sham groups relative to active treatment was larger in pain-related conditions (78%) and obesity (71%) than in GERD (57%) and other conditions (57%), and was smaller in classical-surgery trials (21%) than in endoscopic trials (73%) and those using percutaneous procedures (64%).ConclusionsThe non-specific effects of surgery and other invasive procedures are generally large. Particularly in the field of pain-related conditions, more evidence from randomised placebo-controlled trials is needed to avoid continuation of ineffective treatments.

This pilot study used a randomized controlled clinical trial design to compare the effects of standard emergency medical care to auricular acupuncture plus standard emergency medical care in patients with acute pain syndromes. Eighty-seven active duty military personnel and their dependents with a diagnosis of acute pain completed the study, which was conducted in the emergency room (ER) at Malcolm Grow Medical Center, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. The primary outcome measure was change in pain level from baseline, as measured by the Numerical Rating Scale. Participants in the acupuncture group experienced a 23% reduction in pain before leaving the ER, while average pain levels in participants in the standard medical care group remained basically unchanged. (p < 0.0005). However, both groups experienced a similar reduction in pain 24 hours following treatment in the ER. More research is needed to elucidate treatment effects and to determine mechanisms.

No abstract

PurposePain is multi-dimensional and may be better addressed through a holistic, biopsychosocial approach. Massage therapy is commonly practiced among patients seeking pain management; however, its efficacy is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to rigorously assess the quality of massage therapy research and evidence for its efficacy in treating pain, function-related and health-related quality of life in cancer populations.MethodsKey databases were searched from inception through February 2014. Eligible randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality using the SIGN 50 Checklist. Meta-analysis was applied at the outcome level. A diverse steering committee interpreted the results to develop recommendations.ResultsTwelve high quality and four low quality studies were subsequently included in the review. Results demonstrate massage therapy is effective for treating pain compared to no treatment [standardized mean difference (SMD)  = −.20] and active (SMD = −0.55) comparators. Compared to active comparators, massage therapy was also found to be beneficial for treating fatigue (SMD = −1.06) and anxiety (SMD = −1.24).ConclusionBased on the evidence, weak recommendations are suggested for massage therapy, compared to an active comparator, for the treatment of pain, fatigue, and anxiety. No recommendations were suggested for massage therapy compared to no treatment or sham control based on the available literature to date. This review addresses massage therapy safety, research challenges, how to address identified research gaps, and necessary next steps for implementing massage therapy as a viable pain management option for cancer pain populations.