CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies

Randomized Trial of Therapeutic Massage for Chronic Neck Pain

Open access
Sherman, Karen J., Cherkin, Daniel C., Hawkes, Rene J., Miglioretti, Diana L., Deyo, Richard A.·2009·The Clinical Journal of Pain
DOI 10.1097/ajp.0b013e31818b7912PMC PMC2664516
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the effectiveness of therapeutic massage, one of the most popular complementary medical treatments for neck pain. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate whether therapeutic massage is more beneficial than a self-care book for patients with chronic neck pain. METHODS: Sixty-four such patients were randomized to receive up to 10 massages over 10 weeks or a self-care book. Follow-up telephone interviews after 4, 10, and 26 weeks assessed outcomes including dysfunction and symptoms. Log-binomial regression was used to assess whether there were differences in the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful improvements in dysfunction and symptoms (ie, >5-point improvement on the Neck Disability Index; >30% improvement from baseline on the symptom bothersomeness scale) at each time point. RESULTS: At 10 weeks, more participants randomized to massage experienced clinically significant improvement on the Neck Disability Index [39% vs. 14% of book group; relative risk (RR)=2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-7.5] and on the symptom bothersomeness scale (55% vs. 25% of book group; RR=2.2; 95% CI, 1.04-4.2). After 26 weeks, massage group members tended to be more likely to report improved function (RR=1.8; 95% CI, 0.97-3.5), but not symptom bothersomeness (RR=1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.0). Mean differences between groups were strongest at 4 weeks and not evident by 26 weeks. No serious adverse experiences were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that massage is safe and may have clinical benefits for treating chronic neck pain at least in the short term. A larger trial is warranted to confirm these results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0b013e31818b7912

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In another trial, intermediate-term effects of MT compared with standard care after 16 weeks of follow-up showed mean improvements of 4.7 versus 2.8.

    “The other tested intermediate-term effects of MT were compared with standard care (mean improvements, 4.7 versus 2.8) after 16 weeks of follow-up [24].”

    From Efficacy of Massage Therapy on Pain and Dysfunction in Patients with Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Methods (Outcome Measures; page unavailable) specify follow-up at 4, 10, and 26 weeks, not 16 weeks, and identify the comparison as a self-care book rather than standard care. The Results (Functional Status and Symptoms; page unavailable) report greater improvement with massage but do not give the claimed mean improvements of 4.7 versus 2.8. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Twelve randomized controlled trials were eligible and included in the systematic review.

    “Twelve high-quality studies were included.”

    From Massage Therapy for Neck and Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2013) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Study Design and Setting section describes this paper as a randomized trial, not a systematic review. The Discussion mentions a separate review of 19 trials, not 12 high-quality studies. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Four studies reported favourable immediate effects of massage therapy on functional status compared with standard care, exercise (or standard care), and traction.

    “Four of these studies reported favourable immediate effects compared with standard care [17], exercise (or standard care) [10], and traction [16, 19].”

    From Massage Therapy for Neck and Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2013) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Results, ‘Functional Status and Symptoms’ (page unavailable), report greater improvement in neck disability with massage at four weeks, supporting a favourable short-term effect on functional status. But the Methods, ‘Treatments’ (page unavailable), identify the comparator as a self-care book containing exercise recommendations and information on conventional treatment—not an exercise or standard-care treatment arm. This paper therefore does not support that comparator description for its study. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Two randomized controlled trials were excluded from the meta-analyses because of unsuitable main outcomes.

    “Two RCTs were excluded from meta-analyses due to unsuitable main outcomes [15, 17].”

    From Massage Therapy for Neck and Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2013) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Materials and Methods (Outcome Measures; page unavailable) confirm that this paper is a randomized trial and identify its primary outcomes as neck-related disability and symptom bothersomeness. The paper does not say that it or another trial was excluded from the citing authors’ meta-analyses, or that its outcomes were unsuitable for them. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In one randomized controlled trial, massage therapy for chronic neck pain produced clinically significant improvements compared with standard care on the neck disability index (39% versus 14%) and symptom bothersomeness scale (55% versus 25%).

    “The other RCT [17] assessed the effectiveness of MT for chronic neck pain compared with standard care. The author found that participants in the massage group experienced clinically significant improvements on neck disability index (39% versus 14% of standard care group) and on the symptom bothersomeness scale (55% versus 25% of standard care group).”

    From Massage Therapy for Neck and Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2013) · cites this paper as [17]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sherman, K. J., Cherkin, D. C., Hawkes, R. J., Miglioretti, D. L., & Deyo, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Group Health Cooperative (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
  • Sherman, Karen J.
  • Cherkin, Daniel C.
  • Hawkes, Rene J.
  • Miglioretti, Diana L.
ORCID
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2009-03
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
233-238
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/ajp.0b013e31818b7912
PMC
PMC2664516
OpenAlex
W2134651956
Cited by
126
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 16
FWCI
7.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R21AT001584)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Keywords
therapeutic massage, chronic neck pain, complementary therapy, Neck Disability Index, neck dysfunction, treatment effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Massage, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Retrospective Studies, Self Care, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Neck Pain, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review