Effectiveness of Chinese massage therapy (Tui Na) for chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of tuina massage therapy versus conventional analgesics (ibuprofen) for chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Results Summary
The study design suggests methodological rigor to assess tuina's efficacy, but specific results are not provided in the abstract. The primary outcome measures changes in pain and function at two months, with secondary outcomes including pain scales and orthopedic scores.
Population
150 eligible patients with chronic low back pain.
Effective Dosage
Tuina group: 20-minute sessions, 4-step protocol, 20 sessions over 4 weeks; Drug group: specific daily dose of ibuprofen (exact dosage not specified).
Duration
4 weeks of intervention, with follow-up at two months.
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tuina massage therapy | neutral | chronic low back pain (CLBP) | CLBP patients | - | evaluate the comparative effectiveness | #1 |
conventional analgesics | neutral | chronic low back pain (CLBP) | CLBP patients | - | evaluate the comparative effectiveness | #2 |
tuina treatment | neutral | - | tuina group | 20 minutes, 4-step treatment protocol which includes both structural and relaxation massage, administered in 20 sessions over a period of 4 weeks | administered | #3 |
ibuprofen | neutral | - | conventional drug control group | specific daily dose | take a specific daily dose | #4 |
tuina massage therapy | neutral | back pain and function | CLBP patients | - | change from baseline | #5 |
tuina massage therapy | neutral | Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire | CLBP patients | - | measured by | #6 |
tuina massage therapy | neutral | visual analogue scale | CLBP patients | - | secondary outcome measures include | #7 |
tuina massage therapy | neutral | Japanese orthopedic association score (JOAS) | CLBP patients | - | secondary outcome measures include | #8 |
tuina massage therapy | neutral | McGill pain questionnaire | CLBP patients | - | secondary outcome measures include | #9 |
tuina protocol | neutral | treating CLBP | CLBP patients | - | evaluate the efficacy | #10 |
BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common, disabling musculoskeletal disorder in both developing and developed countries. Although often recommended, the potential efficacy of massage therapy in general, and Chinese massage (tuina) in particular, for relief of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has not been fully established due to inadequate sample sizes, low methodological quality, and subclinical dosing regimens of trials to date. Thus, the purpose of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of tuina massage therapy versus conventional analgesics for CLBP. METHODS/DESIGN: The present study is a single center, two-arm, open-label RCT. A total of 150 eligible CLBP patients will be randomly assigned to either a tuina treatment group or a conventional drug control group in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the tuina group receive a 20 minutes, 4-step treatment protocol which includes both structural and relaxation massage, administered in 20 sessions over a period of 4 weeks. Patients in the conventional drug control group are instructed to take a specific daily dose of ibuprofen. The primary outcome measure is the change from baseline back pain and function, measured by Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, at two months. Secondary outcome measures include the visual analogue scale, Japanese orthopedic association score (JOAS), and McGill pain questionnaire. DISCUSSION: The design and methodological rigor of this trial will allow for collection of valuable data to evaluate the efficacy of a specific tuina protocol for treating CLBP. This trial will therefore contribute to providing a solid foundation for clinical treatment of CLBP, as well as future research in massage therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov of the National Institute of Health on 22 October 2013 (http://NCT01973010).