Comparison between massage and routine physical therapy in women with sub acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to compare the effectiveness of massage therapy versus routine physical therapy in treating subacute and chronic nonspecific low back pain.
Results Summary
Massage therapy significantly improved pain intensity and functional disability compared to routine physical therapy, though both treatments enhanced range of motion similarly. The study concluded that massage is more effective than electrotherapy modalities for low back pain.
Population
Thirty female subjects with subacute or chronic nonspecific low back pain.
Effective Dosage
Ten sessions of treatment (specific frequency not detailed).
Duration
Duration of intervention not explicitly stated, but outcomes were measured after ten sessions.
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
massage therapy | decrease | Pain intensity | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | had shown significant differences before and after intervention | #1 |
massage therapy | decrease | Oswestry Disability Index | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | had shown significant differences before and after intervention | #2 |
massage therapy | increase | flexion range of motion | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | had shown significant differences before and after intervention | #3 |
routine physical therapy | decrease | Pain intensity | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | had shown significant differences before and after intervention | #4 |
routine physical therapy | decrease | Oswestry Disability Index | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | had shown significant differences before and after intervention | #5 |
routine physical therapy | increase | flexion range of motion | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | had shown significant differences before and after intervention | #6 |
massage therapy | decrease | pain intensity | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | had significantly improved the pain intensity compared to routine physical therapy | #7 |
massage therapy | decrease | Oswestry Disability Index | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | had significantly improved the Oswestry Disability Index compared to routine physical therapy | #8 |
massage therapy | no change | range of motion | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | the range of motion changes were not significant between two groups | #9 |
routine physical therapy | no change | range of motion | female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain | - | the range of motion changes were not significant between two groups | #10 |
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the comparison of massage therapy and routine physical therapy on patients with sub acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty volunteer female subjects with a sub acute or chronic nonspecific low back pain were randomly enrolled in two groups, massage therapy and routine physical therapy. After massage application, the hamstring and paravertebral muscles stretching and also stabilizing exercises were prescribed. In the routine physical therapy group, TENS, US and vibrator were used besides exercises. Pain intensity according to Numerical Rating Scale, functional disability level in accordance to Oswestry Disability Index, and modified Schober test, for measurement of flexion range of motion, before and after ten sessions of treatment were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment. RESULTS: Pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index and flexion range of motion had shown significant differences before and after intervention in both groups (p<0.001). The statistical analysis revealed that the massage therapy had significantly improved the pain intensity and Oswestry Disability Index compared to routine physical therapy (p=0.015, p=0.013 respectively), but the range of motion changes were not significant between two groups (p=1.00). CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that both massage therapy and routine physical therapy are useful for sub acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain treatment especially if accompanied with exercise. However, massage is more effective than other electrotherapy modalities, and it can be used alone or with electrotherapy for the treatment of patients with low back pain.