A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain

A randomized, controlled trial

Daniel C. Cherkin, Karen J. Sherman, Janet Kahn, Robert Wellman, Andrea J. Cook, Eric Johnson, Janet Erro, Kristin Delaney, Richard (Rick) Deyo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

66 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of massage for chronic low back pain. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of 2 types of massage and usual care for chronic back pain. Design: Parallel-group randomized, controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, with centralized allocation concealment. Participants were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to massage versus usual care. Massage therapists were unblinded. The study personnel who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00371384) Setting: An integrated health care delivery system in the Seattle area. Patients: 401 persons 20 to 65 years of age with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Intervention: Structural massage (n =132), relaxation massage (n =136), or usual care (n =133). Measurements: Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and symptom bothersomeness scores at 10 weeks (primary outcome) and at 26 and 52 weeks (secondary outcomes). Mean group differences of at least 2 points on the RDQ and at least 1.5 points on the symptom bothersomeness scale were considered clinically meaningful. Results: The massage groups had similar functional outcomes at 10 weeks. The adjusted mean RDQ score was 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.0 points) lower in the relaxation group and 2.5 points (CI, 1.4 to 3.5 points) lower in the structural massage group than in the usual care group, and adjusted mean symptom bothersomeness scores were 1.7 points (CI, 1.2 to 2.2 points) lower with relaxation massage and 1.4 points (CI, 0.8 to 1.9 points) lower with structural massage. The beneficial effects of relaxation massage on function (but not on symptom reduction) persisted at 52 weeks but were small. Limitation: Participants were not blinded to treatment. Conclusion: Massage therapy may be effective for treatment of chronic back pain, with benefits lasting at least 6 months. No clinically meaningful difference between relaxation and structural massage was observed in terms of relieving disability or symptoms. Primary Funding Source: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-9
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume155
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jul 5 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Massage
Low Back Pain
Randomized Controlled Trials
Back Pain
Chronic Pain
Integrated Delivery of Health Care
Random Allocation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain : A randomized, controlled trial. / Cherkin, Daniel C.; Sherman, Karen J.; Kahn, Janet; Wellman, Robert; Cook, Andrea J.; Johnson, Eric; Erro, Janet; Delaney, Kristin; Deyo, Richard (Rick).

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 155, No. 1, 05.07.2011, p. 1-9.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cherkin, DC, Sherman, KJ, Kahn, J, Wellman, R, Cook, AJ, Johnson, E, Erro, J, Delaney, K & Deyo, RR 2011, 'A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain: A randomized, controlled trial', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 155, no. 1, pp. 1-9.
Cherkin, Daniel C. ; Sherman, Karen J. ; Kahn, Janet ; Wellman, Robert ; Cook, Andrea J. ; Johnson, Eric ; Erro, Janet ; Delaney, Kristin ; Deyo, Richard (Rick). / A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain : A randomized, controlled trial. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2011 ; Vol. 155, No. 1. pp. 1-9.
@article{fe3f471db2d440d2b305abad51d10522,
title = "A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain: A randomized, controlled trial",
abstract = "Background: Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of massage for chronic low back pain. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of 2 types of massage and usual care for chronic back pain. Design: Parallel-group randomized, controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, with centralized allocation concealment. Participants were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to massage versus usual care. Massage therapists were unblinded. The study personnel who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00371384) Setting: An integrated health care delivery system in the Seattle area. Patients: 401 persons 20 to 65 years of age with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Intervention: Structural massage (n =132), relaxation massage (n =136), or usual care (n =133). Measurements: Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and symptom bothersomeness scores at 10 weeks (primary outcome) and at 26 and 52 weeks (secondary outcomes). Mean group differences of at least 2 points on the RDQ and at least 1.5 points on the symptom bothersomeness scale were considered clinically meaningful. Results: The massage groups had similar functional outcomes at 10 weeks. The adjusted mean RDQ score was 2.9 points (95{\%} CI, 1.8 to 4.0 points) lower in the relaxation group and 2.5 points (CI, 1.4 to 3.5 points) lower in the structural massage group than in the usual care group, and adjusted mean symptom bothersomeness scores were 1.7 points (CI, 1.2 to 2.2 points) lower with relaxation massage and 1.4 points (CI, 0.8 to 1.9 points) lower with structural massage. The beneficial effects of relaxation massage on function (but not on symptom reduction) persisted at 52 weeks but were small. Limitation: Participants were not blinded to treatment. Conclusion: Massage therapy may be effective for treatment of chronic back pain, with benefits lasting at least 6 months. No clinically meaningful difference between relaxation and structural massage was observed in terms of relieving disability or symptoms. Primary Funding Source: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.",
author = "Cherkin, {Daniel C.} and Sherman, {Karen J.} and Janet Kahn and Robert Wellman and Cook, {Andrea J.} and Eric Johnson and Janet Erro and Kristin Delaney and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)}",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
day = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "155",
pages = "1--9",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain

T2 - A randomized, controlled trial

AU - Cherkin, Daniel C.

AU - Sherman, Karen J.

AU - Kahn, Janet

AU - Wellman, Robert

AU - Cook, Andrea J.

AU - Johnson, Eric

AU - Erro, Janet

AU - Delaney, Kristin

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

PY - 2011/7/5

Y1 - 2011/7/5

N2 - Background: Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of massage for chronic low back pain. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of 2 types of massage and usual care for chronic back pain. Design: Parallel-group randomized, controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, with centralized allocation concealment. Participants were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to massage versus usual care. Massage therapists were unblinded. The study personnel who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00371384) Setting: An integrated health care delivery system in the Seattle area. Patients: 401 persons 20 to 65 years of age with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Intervention: Structural massage (n =132), relaxation massage (n =136), or usual care (n =133). Measurements: Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and symptom bothersomeness scores at 10 weeks (primary outcome) and at 26 and 52 weeks (secondary outcomes). Mean group differences of at least 2 points on the RDQ and at least 1.5 points on the symptom bothersomeness scale were considered clinically meaningful. Results: The massage groups had similar functional outcomes at 10 weeks. The adjusted mean RDQ score was 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.0 points) lower in the relaxation group and 2.5 points (CI, 1.4 to 3.5 points) lower in the structural massage group than in the usual care group, and adjusted mean symptom bothersomeness scores were 1.7 points (CI, 1.2 to 2.2 points) lower with relaxation massage and 1.4 points (CI, 0.8 to 1.9 points) lower with structural massage. The beneficial effects of relaxation massage on function (but not on symptom reduction) persisted at 52 weeks but were small. Limitation: Participants were not blinded to treatment. Conclusion: Massage therapy may be effective for treatment of chronic back pain, with benefits lasting at least 6 months. No clinically meaningful difference between relaxation and structural massage was observed in terms of relieving disability or symptoms. Primary Funding Source: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

AB - Background: Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of massage for chronic low back pain. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of 2 types of massage and usual care for chronic back pain. Design: Parallel-group randomized, controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, with centralized allocation concealment. Participants were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to massage versus usual care. Massage therapists were unblinded. The study personnel who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00371384) Setting: An integrated health care delivery system in the Seattle area. Patients: 401 persons 20 to 65 years of age with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Intervention: Structural massage (n =132), relaxation massage (n =136), or usual care (n =133). Measurements: Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and symptom bothersomeness scores at 10 weeks (primary outcome) and at 26 and 52 weeks (secondary outcomes). Mean group differences of at least 2 points on the RDQ and at least 1.5 points on the symptom bothersomeness scale were considered clinically meaningful. Results: The massage groups had similar functional outcomes at 10 weeks. The adjusted mean RDQ score was 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.0 points) lower in the relaxation group and 2.5 points (CI, 1.4 to 3.5 points) lower in the structural massage group than in the usual care group, and adjusted mean symptom bothersomeness scores were 1.7 points (CI, 1.2 to 2.2 points) lower with relaxation massage and 1.4 points (CI, 0.8 to 1.9 points) lower with structural massage. The beneficial effects of relaxation massage on function (but not on symptom reduction) persisted at 52 weeks but were small. Limitation: Participants were not blinded to treatment. Conclusion: Massage therapy may be effective for treatment of chronic back pain, with benefits lasting at least 6 months. No clinically meaningful difference between relaxation and structural massage was observed in terms of relieving disability or symptoms. Primary Funding Source: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960037922&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960037922&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 155

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 1

ER -