Adverse Events of Massage Therapy in Pain‐Related Conditions: A Systematic Review

Yin, Ping; Gao, Ningyang; Wu, Junyi; Litscher, Gerhard; Xu, Shi‐Hai

doi:10.1155/2014/480956

Cited by 56 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a case report of rhabdomyolysis (16) in an elderly gentleman who received an aggressive prolonged session of massage delivered by two therapists, but such severe adverse events are exceedingly rare. (36) Summary Massage may be a helpful adjunct to the overall treatment strategy of patients with chronic pain. In addition to some evidence of a direct, short term impact on pain, it may provide synergistic benefits through reduction in stress associated with a chronic condition.…”

Section: Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary and alternative medicine therapies for chronic pain

Bauer

Tilburt

Sood

et al. 2016

Chin. J. Integr. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain afflflicts over 50 million people in the US, with 30.7% US adults suffering with chronic pain. Despite advances in therapies, many patients will continue to deal with ongoing symptoms that are not fully addressed by the best conventional medicine has to offer them. The patients frequently turn to therapies outside the usual purview of conventional medicine (herbs, acupuncture, meditation, etc.) called complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Academic and governmental groups are also starting to incorporate CAM recommendations into chronic pain management strategies. Thus, for any physician who care for patients with chronic pain, having some familiarity with these therapies-including risks and benefits-will be key to helping guide patients in making evidence-based, well informed decisions about whether or not to use such therapies. On the other hand, if a CAM therapy has evidence of both safety and efficacy then not making it available to a patient who is suffering does not meet the need of the patient. We summarize the current evidence of a wide variety of CAM modalities that have potential for helping patients with chronic pain in this article. The triad of chronic pain symptoms, ready access to information on the internet, and growing patient empowerment suggest that CAM therapies will remain a consistent part of the healthcare of patients dealing with chronic pain.

show abstract

Section: Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary and alternative medicine therapies for chronic pain

Bauer

Tilburt

Sood

et al. 2016

Chin. J. Integr. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these reviews further specified SMT as cervical, thoracic or lumbar SMT (21 reviews [46, 47, 49, 54, 57, 65, 91, 96, 103, 105, 114, 115, 119, 121, 123, 125–127, 134, 136, 150]). Other reviews did not further specify than ‘manipulation’ (10 reviews [36, 66, 70–73, 79, 93, 101, 107]), ‘osteopathic manipulative treatment/therapy’ (8 reviews [38, 52, 56, 64, 81, 82, 116, 139]), and ‘chiropractic care/interventions’ (5 reviews [67, 98–100, 137]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSpinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a widely used manual treatment, but many reviews exist with conflicting conclusions about the safety of SMT. We performed an overview of reviews to elucidate and quantify the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with SMT.MethodsWe searched five electronic databases from inception to December 8, 2015. We included reviews on any type of studies, patients, and SMT technique. Our primary outcome was SAEs. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Since there were insufficient data for calculating incidence rates of SAEs, we used an alternative approach; the conclusions regarding safety of SMT were extracted for each review, and the communicated opinion were judged by two reviewers independently as safe, harmful, or neutral/unclear. Risk ratios (RRs) of a review communicating that SMT is safe and meeting the requirements for each AMSTAR item, were calculated.ResultsWe identified 283 eligible reviews, but only 118 provided data for synthesis. The most frequently described adverse events (AEs) were stroke, headache, and vertebral artery dissection. Fifty-four reviews (46%) expressed that SMT is safe, 15 (13%) expressed that SMT is harmful, and 49 reviews (42%) were neutral or unclear. Thirteen reviews reported incidence estimates for SAEs, roughly ranging from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 250,000,000 manipulations. Low methodological quality was present, with a median of 4 of 11 AMSTAR items met (interquartile range, 3 to 6). Reviews meeting the requirements for each of the AMSTAR items (i.e. good internal validity) had a higher chance of expressing that SMT is safe.ConclusionsIt is currently not possible to provide an overall conclusion about the safety of SMT; however, the types of SAEs reported can indeed be significant, sustaining that some risk is present. High quality research and consistent reporting of AEs and SAEs are needed.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015030068.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Yin et al conducted a systematic review to evaluate the adverse events of massage therapy in pain-related conditions (48). They indicated that disc herniation, soft tissue trauma, neurologic compromise, spinal cord injury, and dissection of the vertebral arteries were the main complications of massage, and spinal manipulation in massage has repeatedly been associated with serious adverse events especially, but the incidence of such events is low.…”

Section: Chinese Massagementioning

confidence: 99%