massage
Ita Wegman (22 February 1876 – 4 March 1943) was born 150 years ago today. Together with Rudolf Steiner, she was a central figure in the development of anthroposophic medicine, an approach that interprets illness through spiritual–cosmological concepts. In 1921, Wegman founded the Klinisch-Therapeutisches Institut in Arlesheim, Switzerland—today the Ita Wegman Clinic—the first hospital dedicated to anthroposophic medicine. Practices developed there included rhythmical massage, a gentle bodywork technique intended to “harmonize” physiological rhythms, and mistletoe-based cancer therapy derived from Viscum album, later marketed as Iscador, as well as many other remedies influences by homeopathy. Wegman also co-founded Weleda, which remains a major producer of anthroposophic remedies and cosmetics.
Despite its continued use in parts of Europe, mistletoe therapy (including Iscador) has not demonstrated reliable clinical efficacy in improving cancer survival or tumor outcomes in well-controlled trials. Major systematic reviews conclude that evidence for benefit is inconsistent, methodologically weak, and often biased, with any reported improvements largely limited to subjective quality-of-life measures. It is therefore regarded by mainstream oncology as an unproven therapy rather than an evidence-based treatment. For Wegman’s other therapeutic innovations the evidence is even less convincing.
Her collaboration with Steiner was both professionally formative and personally intense. They met in the early 1900s, and Wegman later credited Steiner with inspiring her decision to pursue medicine relatively late, enrolling at the University of Zurich. From 1919 onward, their cooperation deepened: Steiner supplied esoteric frameworks derived from anthroposophy, while Wegman sought to translate these ideas into clinical practice. Their collaboration culminated in the book “Fundamentals of Therapy” (1925), published shortly after Steiner’s death.
Speculation about a romantic relationship between Wegman and Steiner has persisted for decades. Purported “love letters” dated to 1924 describe expressions of affection, but most scholars regard them as forgeries, citing factual errors, the absence of originals from Steiner archives, and stylistic inconsistencies with Steiner’s documented correspondence. Steiner himself described their bond in karmic terms, claiming a debt from a past incarnation that explained their closeness despite his marriage to Marie von Sivers. Historian Peter Selg and others interpret the relationship as an intense spiritual and intellectual partnership rather than a conventional affair, though contemporaries did circulate rumors.
Steiner died on March 30, 1925, after a prolonged illness. The exact cause remains uncertain and not definitively confirmed as stomach cancer. Wegman provided Steiner’s main care from September 1924 until his death, leaving her clinic to nurse him in his studio at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland. She is said to have employed anthroposophic approaches, but specific treatments remain sparsely documented in available accounts.
Following Steiner’s death, Wegman’s authority within the movement became increasingly contested. In 1935 she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society amid internal power struggles and accusations of doctrinal deviation; this expulsion was formally reversed in 2018. Wegman’s political stance during the Nazi period remains controversial. While anthroposophy as a movement was partially suppressed in Nazi Germany, several leading anthroposophists – including Wegman – sought accommodation rather than resistance. Wegman expressed hopes in the early 1930s that National Socialism might support a spiritual renewal of society and did not publicly oppose the regime. Although she was not a member of the Nazi Party and later faced restrictions, her posture is best described as opportunistic accommodation and ideological ambiguity.
Wegman’s collaboration with Steiner created the foundations of anthroposophic medicine. It also generated enduring scientific, ethical, and political controversies – particularly regarding the medical validity of its treatments and its leaders’ responses to authoritarian power after Steiner’s death.
Low back pain (LBP) is a significant public health issue due to its high prevalence and associated disability burden. Clinical practice guidelines recommend non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions for managing pain and function in people with LBP. This overview of Cochrane review is aimed ato providing accessible, high-quality evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions for people with LBP and to highlight areas of remaining uncertainty and gaps in the evidence regarding the effects of these interventions for people with LBP.
the team searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 15 April 2023, to identify Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials testing the effect of non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions, unrestricted by language. Major outcomes were pain intensity, function and safety. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the quality of the reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was placebo/sham.
A total of 31 Cochrane reviews were included of 644 trials that randomised 97,183 adults with LBP. The team had high confidence in the findings of 19 reviews, moderate confidence in the findings of two reviews, and low confidence in the findings of 10 reviews. They present results for non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions compared to placebo/sham or no treatment/usual care at short-term (≤ three months) follow-up. Placebo/sham comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to placebo, there is probably no difference in function (at one-week follow-up) for spinal manipulation (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 0.21; 2 trials, 205 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for heated back wrap. Compared to placebo, heated back wrap may result in skin pinkness (6/128 participants versus 1/130; 2 trials; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to sham acupuncture, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.07; 3 trials, 957 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to sham traction, there is probably no difference in pain intensity for traction (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -4, 95% CI -17.7 to 9.7; 1 trial, 60 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for acupuncture. There may be no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture for safety outcomes (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.10; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 465 participants; low-certainty evidence). No treatment/usual care comparisons Acute/subacute LBP Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.41; 2 trials, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably provides a small improvement in function (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.49; 2 trials, 400 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data for safety were reported only for massage. There may be no difference between massage and usual care for safety (risk difference 0, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07; 1 trial, 51 participants; low-certainty evidence). Chronic LBP Compared to no treatment, acupuncture probably provides a medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, mean difference (MD) -10.1, 95% CI -16.8 to -3.4; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a small improvement in function (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.06; 3 trials, 144 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, acupuncture probably provides a small improvement in function (MD 9.4, 95% CI 6.15 to 12.65; 1 trial, 734 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment/usual care, exercise therapies probably provide a small to medium reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -15.2, 95% CI -18.3 to -12.2; 35 trials, 2746 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (0 to 100 scale, MD -6.8, 95% CI -8.3 to -5.3; 38 trials, 2942 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, multidisciplinary therapies probably provide a medium reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.28; 9 trials, 879 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably provide a small improvement in function (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.19; 9 trials, 939 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to no treatment, psychological therapies using operant approaches probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.11; 3 trials, 153 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care, psychological therapies (including progressive muscle relaxation and behavioural approaches) probably provide a small reduction in pain intensity (0 to 100 scale, MD -5.18, 95% CI -9.79 to -0.57; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but there is probably no difference in function (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.02; 2 trials, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions and no treatment/usual care for safety (very low-certainty evidence).
The authors concluded that spinal manipulation probably makes no difference to function compared to placebo for people with acute/subacute LBP. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to sham acupuncture. There is probably no difference between traction and sham traction for pain intensity in people with chronic LBP. Compared to advice to rest, advice to stay active probably reduces pain intensity slightly and improves function slightly for people with acute LBP. Acupuncture probably reduces pain intensity, and improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment. Acupuncture probably improves function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Exercise therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to no treatment/usual care. Multidisciplinary therapies probably reduce pain intensity, and improve function slightly for people with chronic LBP, compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, psychological therapies probably reduce pain intensity slightly, but probably make no difference to function for people with chronic LBP.
The findings of this overview might surprise some chiropractors, however, it did not surprise me at all*. I have stated more often than I care to remember that, for LBP, we currently have no approach that is truly convincing. One form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) seems to be roughly as effective (or ineffective) as the next. Where they might differ is safety and cost. On both of these measures chiropractic spinal manipulation is less convincing than some of the other options available, as we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog.
So, in a nutshell, the message to LBP patients can be put simply: stay away from chiros, keep active and, if you insist, use whatever other form of SCAM that you fancy, that is safe and inexpensive.
PS
*I was, however, surprised that the authors had low confidence in the findings of 10 of the 31 reviews. Cochrane reviews should be the most reliable evidence available to date!!!
This systematic review was aimed at evaluating if musculoskeletal manipulations (MMs), including osteopathic manipulation and chiropractic care, are effective to improve quality of life, pain intensity and function in older adults with musculoskeletal disorders.
Randomised controlled trials, controlled non-randomised trials and open label trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of MM such as osteopathic manipulation, chiropractic manipulation, myofascial release, craniosacral therapy, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapies in older people (age ≥65 years) with musculoskeletal disorders. The main outcomes included pain intensity, functionality and quality of life. Additionally, other related outcomes were considered, such as medical use duration, mood, mobility, motion, strength and endurance. Finally, we considered any adverse events.
Selection and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. The effect estimates for each study were performed using Review Manager V.5.14. Continuous outcomes were analysed using the mean difference (95% CI). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 (RoB 2). No meta-analysis was performed.
Five parallel randomised controlled trials were included, with a total sample size of 676 participants (41.6% women with a mean age of 77.3 years): 34 with chronic pain, 265 with neck pain and 377 with low back pain. MMs were not effective in patients with chronic pain, neither in pain intensity nor in functionality.
For neck pain, considering the main outcomes, only in one of the two studies was there a statistically significant improvement in neck pain intensity only at week 12 for spinal manipulative treatment (SMT)+home exercise (HE) compared with HE alone (ES=-0.90 (95% CI -1.46 to -0.34); p=0.002).
For low back pain, SMT+HE showed a statistically significant reduction in pain at 12 weeks compared with HE (ES=-0.79 (95% CI -1.39 to -0.19) p=0.010.
For neck pain and low back pain, no statistically significant improvement in functional status and quality of life was observed with MM compared with any control group.
RoB 2 showed a high risk of bias in three studies and some concerns in the others. At the domain level, the lowest risk was observed in the randomisation process (80% with some concerns). All five studies reported adverse events, none of which were serious.
The authors concluded that this systematic review highlights the need for further investigation into complementary therapies, particularly osteopathy, for chronic pain management and prevention in elderly individuals. The results of the current work emphasise that there is a need to further investigate this topic and move the focus more on the promotion of healthy and management behaviours (eg, more physical activity, self-efficacy and adaptive coping, less healthcare utilisation, medication use) and less on the pain symptoms. The fundamental need for complementary medicine, and in particular MM such as chiropractic care and osteopathic manipulative treatment, is the development of clinical trials and RCTs to assess efficacy on quality of life, pain, functionality and general health of the elderly patient. These will help us to determine where MM can be significant.
This, it seems to me, is merely a polite way of stating that neither chiropractic nor osteopathy are supported by sound evidence, and that therapeutic claims by chiropractors and osteopaths are usually hugely exaggerated. Therefore, the prudent thing to do, if you are suffering from back or neck pain, is to use treatments that are less expensive and less likely to cause severe, sometimes life-threatening adverse effects.
This meta-analysis evaluated and compared the safety and efficacy of spinal manipulation, mobilization, and massage for the management of cervicogenic headache (CGH). Comprehensive searches were conducted in Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies investigating the effects of manipulation, mobilization, and massage on pain, disability, and physical function in patients with CGH. Key outcomes included pain severity (visual analog scale, VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Flexion-Rotation Test (FRT), and Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) at various follow-up timepoints.
Fourteen studies totaling 1,297 CGH patients were included. Standard pairwise meta-analysis revealed that sustained natural apophyseal glides (SNAG*) mobilization produced significantly greater improvements compared to non-SNAG interventions in VAS (MD = 1.73, 95%CI: 1.05, 2.40), NDI (MD = 8.55, 95%CI: 2.73, 14.37), FRT (MD = -7.22, 95%CI: -9.38, -5.07), and HDI (MD = 9.29, 95%CI: 3.64, 14.95), with benefits maintained over time. Network meta-analysis showed that for VAS improvement, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities were: cervical spine manipulation (CSM, 98.9%), mobilization (67.3%), exercise (21.0%), and massage (12.8%). For NDI, the SUCRA scores were: CSM (82.2%), mobilization (57.2%), exercise (6.7%), and massage (53.9%). CSM exhibited significantly greater VAS reductions compared to exercise, massage, and mobilization, while mobilization was superior to exercise and massage for VAS. For NDI, CSM was significantly better than exercise, but no other between-group differences were observed.
The authors concluded that, in patients with CGH, SNAG mobilization can significantly improve pain and function, with benefits maintained in the long-term. Additionally, CSM may be the most effective short-term intervention for reducing pain and disability compared to mobilization, massage, and exercise, although clinician expertise appears to be an important factor.
The authors note that both components of this study exhibited substantial heterogeneity, with variability in the frequency, duration, and nature of spinal interventions across studies. This lack of standardization complicates the translation of findings to clinical practice. Additionally, while the network meta-analysis allowed for comparative evaluation of several manual therapy modalities, the large differences between sham/control groups precluded the inclusion of SNAG, thereby limiting the comprehensiveness of the analysis.
They also admit that The small sample sizes and potential selection biases in the primary studies significantly limit the ability to generalize their findings to the broader CGH patient population. While the studies provide important insights into the effectiveness of manual therapy interventions, their conclusions should be interpreted cautiously. Larger, more diverse studies with more robust sampling strategies would help improve the external validity and reliability of the findings, allowing for more confident recommendations that can be applied to the wider CGH population in clinical settings.
I agree with these critical thoughts and wonder why the authors nonetheless formulated their conclusions so definitively. In my view, there are not enough reliable data for arriving at such firm conclusions. Furthermore, it is unclear how thay assessed the safety of the various interventions. Considering the well-documented risks of CSM, I would certainly not name it as the manual therapy of first choice.
*The SNAG technique involves the application of graded mobilization along the treatment plane of the selected cervical facet joint, from the mid-range to the end-range, with the joint position maintained.
Aim of this study was to investigate associations between use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and uptake of COVID-19 and flu vaccines in a nationally representative US sample.
The results of this secondary analysis of National Health Interview Survey 2022 data indicated that after accounting for potential confounders, the overall use of SCAM did not significantly predict uptake of COVID-19 (p = 0.745) or flu vaccination (p = 0.123).
Vaccination uptake was lower for both COVID-19 and flu vaccines respectively, in individuals who visited:
- chiropractors (AOR = 0.78, 95% CI [0.69, 0.89], p < 0.001; AOR = 0.71, 95% CI [0.63, 0.81], p < 0.001),
- naturopaths (AOR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.51, 0.86], p = 0.002; AOR = 0.72, 95% CI [0.55, 0.94], p = 0.017).
Uptake rates were higher for both COVID-19 and flu vaccines respectively, for those who employed:
- acupuncturists (AOR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.15, 1.86], p = 0.002; AOR = 1.32, 95% CI [1.08, 1.63], p = 0.008),
mind-body medicine [increased likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination uptake (AOR = 1.24, 95% CI [1.08, 1.42], p = 0.002), but not flu vaccine (p = 0.264)].
Visiting a massage therapist was not a significant predictor for COVID-19 and flu vaccines, respectively (p = 0.128, p = 0.232).
Overall, the pattern of associations of SCAM use with COVID-19 vaccination uptake was comparable to that of flu vaccination uptake.
We have discussed many similar studies before, e.g.:
- Attitudes of Vaccination-Hesitant Parents Towards So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM)
- Do views about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), nature and god influence people’s vaccination intentions?
- Use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and its association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status
- Reasons for parental hesitancy or refusal of childhood vaccination
- Are people who oppose COVID-19 vaccinations intellectually challenged?
- Interest in so-called alternative medicine is linked to vaccination coverage
- Vaccination rates of Canadian healthcare professionals: those of chiropractors and naturopaths are at the lowest
- Preference of so-called alternative medicine predicts negative attitudes to vaccination
- Intelligence, Religiosity, SCAM, Vaccination Hesitancy – are there links?
- A naturopath promoting fake news about COVID vaccinations
- More information on homeopaths’ and anthroposophic doctors’ attitude towards vaccinations
- The UK Society of Homeopaths, a hub of anti-vaccination activists?
- Are anthroposophy-enthusiasts for or against vaccinations?
- Far too many chiropractors believe that vaccinations do not have a positive effect on public health
- Naturopaths’ counselling against vaccinations could be criminally negligent
- HOMEOPATHS AGAINST VACCINATION: “The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone”
- Use of alternative medicine is associated with low vaccination rates
- Integrative medicine physicians tend to harbour anti-vaccination views
- Vaccination: chiropractors “espouse views which aren’t evidence based”
Generally speking, these studies show that SCAM-users are less likely to approve of vaccinations than non-users. The present study partly confirms this finding and shows that, at least in the US, chiropractors and naturopaths are primarily responsible for the association.
My conclusion:
yet another reason to avoid these types of practitioners!
Constipation is characterized by persistent difficulty in defecating. It is a common disorder in the community particularly affecting the elderly and those with intellectual disabilities and neuropsychiatric disorders. It can also be caused by numerous medications including analgesic, antidepressant, antihypertensive and anticholinergic agents. It may be asymptomatic or it may produce abdominal pain/cramps, bloating, nausea and anorexia progressing to urinary incontinence and fecal impaction, or paradoxical diarrhea due to overflow.
This review demonstrated that constipation may also kill you. A wide range of mechanisms associated with constipation may result in death including:
- bowel obstruction,
- stercoral colitis with ulceration,
- perforation and peritonitis,
- respiratory compromise,
- abdominal compartment syndrome,
- venous thrombosis with pulmonary thromboembolism.
Moreover, constipation may exacerbate pre-existing diseases and treatments such as laxative and enemas may be lethal. The autopsy examination of a case with constipation and megacolon should take into account all of the pre-existing conditions, as well as the possibility of underlying disorders such as Hirschprung disease. Review of the decedent’s medical and drug history and level of supportive care will be important. Toxicological evaluations may be useful.
____________________
Constipation is defined as having fewer than three bowel movements per week or experiencing difficulty in passing stool. The condition is common and often difficult to treat. WebMD recommends diet and lifestyle changes, such as:
- Drink an extra two to four glasses of water a day, unless your doctor tells you to limit fluids for another reason.
- Try warm liquids, especially in the morning.
- Add fruits and vegetables to your diet.
- Eat prunes and bran cereal.
- Exercise most days of the week. When you move your body, the muscles in your intestines are more active, too.
- Don’t ignore the urge to poop. Listen to your body when it’s telling you it’s time to go.
- Eat foods with probiotics such as yogurt and kefir.
- Skip processed meats, fried foods, and refined carbs such as white bread, pasta, and potatoes. You can eat lean meats such as poultry and low-fat dairy products.
- Keep a food diary and make a note of any foods that constipate you.
- Adjust how you sit on the toilet. Raising your feet, leaning back, or squatting may make it easier to poop.
- Take an over-the-counter fiber supplement (Metamucil®, MiraLAX®, Citrucel® or Benefiber®). Start with a small amount at first.
- Avoid reading or using your phone or other devices while you’re trying to move your bowels.
- Drink less alcohol and caffeinated drinks, which can make you dehydrated.
- Talk to your doctor about bowel training. It can help train your body to pass stool shortly after breakfast every morning.
- Don’t rush when going to the bathroom. Give yourself time to relax, which can help your digestive muscles relax.
- Talk to your doctor about any medications that could be causing your constipation.
___________________
Because conventional options are often not as successful as hoped, many sufferers turn to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But is SCAM really a solution?
A recent review found that “acupuncture or electroacupuncture and herbal medicine are effective in treating
constipation, whereas findings on massage and moxibustion are inconclusive.” Our own assessment [‘Oxford Handbook…’ (2008)] of the evidence disagrees and rated as follows:
- Beneficial: Psyllium
- Likely to be beneficial: abdominal massage, biofeedback, fibre
- Unknown effectiveness: acupuncture, aloe vera, ayurvedic medicine, meditation, Padma Lax, probiotics, herbal tea.
Whichever way we turn it, constipation is a more serious condition than many of us think, and neither conventional healthcare nor SCAM are convincingly successful in helping those who suffer from it.
Reflexology (originally called ‘zone therapy’ by its inventor) is a manual technique where pressure is applied to the sole of the patient’s foot (and sometimes also other areas such as the hands or ears). It must be differentiated from a simple foot massage that is agreeable but makes no therapeutic claims beyond relaxation. Reflexology is said to have its roots in ancient cultures. Its current popularity goes back to the US doctor William Fitzgerald (1872–1942) who did some research in the early 1900s and thought to have discovered that the human body is divided into 10 zones each of which is represented on the sole of the foot.
Reflexologists thus drew maps of the sole of the foot where all the body’s organs are depicted. Numerous such maps have been published and, embarrassingly, they do not all agree with each other as to the location of our organs on the sole of our feet. By massaging specific zones which are assumed to be connected to specific organs, reflexologists believe to positively influence the function of these organs. Reflexology is mostly used as a therapy, but some therapists also claim they can diagnose health problems through feeling tender or gritty areas on the sole of the foot which, they claim, correspond to specific organs.
The assumptions made by reflexologists contradict our current knowledge of anatomy and physiology and are thus not biologically plausible. Reflexology has been submitted to clinical trials in numerous different conditions. A systematic review concluded that “the best clinical evidence does not demonstrate convincingly reflexology to be an effective treatment for any medical condition.” Recent review tend to be more positive suggestin, for instance, that foot reflexology produced significant improvements in sleep disturbances , or that reflexology may provide additional nonpharmacotherapy intervention for adults suffering from depression, anxiety, or sleep disturbance. However, due to the poor quality of most of the primary studies, such statements must be interpreted with caution.
[references see my book]
This randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of foot reflexology on the sexual function of lactating women. It was conducted in selected health centers of Isfahan in 2022 on 64 lactating women (32 women in each group of intervention and control). The samples were selected using the convenience sampling method and were randomly divided into two groups using a random number table. Each participant in the intervention group received 10 sessions of foot reflexology, and each session lasted for 50 minutes (25 minutes for each foot) and was held every three days. The female sexual function index (FSFI) questionnaire was completed by all participants before the intervention and four weeks after the end of the treatment period. The control group received routine care and completed the questionnaire before the intervention and 9 weeks later. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 and independent/paired t-tests.
Results showed that the subjects of the two groups were homogeneous in demographic and fertility characteristics at the beginning of the study. The total mean score of sexual function in the intervention group was 20.36 ± 4.16 before the intervention and 28.05 ± 2.89 after the intervention. In the control group, this score was 20.51 ± 3.75 before the intervention and 20.54 ± 3.71 nine weeks after it. A comparison of the total mean score of sexual function and dimensions showed a significant difference between the two groups four weeks after the intervention (p <0.001). In the intervention group, significant changes were observed in the total mean score of sexual function and its dimensions four weeks after the intervention compared to before the intervention. However, in the control group, there were no significant changes in this score and its dimensions nine weeks later compared to before the intervention.
The authors concluded that lactating women in the two groups did not have a desirable sexual function before the intervention. However, foot reflexology in the present study could effectively improve the sexual function of women in the reflexology group. Therefore, it is recommended to employ foot reflexology therapy in health centers to help lactating women restore their sexual function.
This conclusion might hold if we assume that firstly reflexology was a plausibe therapy (which it is not, see above) and secondly postulated that patient-blinding and placebo effects (features that the present trial did not have) are unimportant in such a study. Yet, the latter assumption cannot be true. A total of 500 minutes of a foot massage must surely prompt a placebo response! Therefore, the notion that the reflexology treatment caused the observed outcomes is unwarranted – almost certainly the effects were mainly due to placebo.
So, what we have here is a hugely over-optimistic conclusion, something we all long got used to in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But far worse, in my view, is the fact that the authors do not even leave it at that. They also issue a gerneral and far-reaching recommendation for foot reflexology as a means for restoring sexual function to lactating women.
This is not just poor science, it is stupid and irresponsible!
Tuina, or Tui Na is based on the notion that imbalances of the life-force, qi, can cause blockages or imbalances that lead to symptoms and illness. Tuina massage is similar to acupressure in that it targets specific acupoints. Practitioners use fingers to apply pressure to stimulate these points.
Some people suggest that Tuina might benefit diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), but the evidence is inconclusive. This review evaluated its clinical efficacy and safety for DPN treatment.
Ten databases were searched, covering the period from their inception to February 21, 2024. Relevant data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan
5.3 software.
A total of 24 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,989 participants were included. Patients in the experimental group received Tuina in addition to routine treatments and nursing of DPN. Patients in the control group received routine treatments and nursing of DPN, including health education, dietary guidance, blood sugar control, and oral vitamin B or mecobalamin.
The meta-analysis showed that, compared to various control therapies, Tuina demonstrated a higher overall clinical efficacy rate and improved Toronto Clinical Scoring System (TCSS) scores, indicating that Chinese Tuina may provide benefits beyond conventional treatment. Furthermore, improvements were observed in the motor and sensory nerve conduction velocities (MNCV and SNCV) of certain specific nerves, such as the common peroneal nerve, sural nerve, and ulnar nerve. Although the differences in MNCV and SNCV of the tibial and median nerves were not statistically significant, the overall improvement in clinical outcome supports the notion that Tuina is superior to conventional treatment.
The authors concluded that Chinese Tuina therapy is a safe and effective treatment option for DPN. It can alleviate clinical symptoms and improve the MNCV of the common peroneal nerve as well as the SNCV of the sural and ulnar nerves. Its efficacy in the tibial and median nerves remains unconfirmed, highlighting a need for future large-scale, high-quality RCTs.
There are several reasons why I cannot accept the conclusion that Tuina is effective for DPN, e.g:
- All the RCTs were of the notorious A+B vs B design that – as discussed ad nauseam on this blog – does not control for placebo effects and thus never generate negative results.
- None of the RCTs were single or double blind which means that expectation and therapist influence would have impacted on the findings.
- All of the studes originate from China; we have often discussed why such studies are notoriously unreliable. Funding for the review was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and Jilin Provincial Natural Science Foundation Project.
- Most of the studies are published in journals and/or laguages that are not accessible to non-Chinese readers.
- None of these serious limitations are discussed by the review authors.
I REST MY CASE
Removing the chest tube in cardiac patients after surgery is one of the worst experiences of hospitalization in the intensive care units. Various pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods are available to control pain in these patients. This study aimed to investigate the combined effect of reflexology massage and respiratory relaxation on pain following chest tube removal in cardiac surgery patients of Shahid Beheshti Hospital in Shiraz, Iran, in 2023.
The study was a double-blind randomized clinical trial performed on 140 patients who underwent heart surgery and had a chest tube in Shiraz, Iran. The samples were randomly divided into four groups:
1- control group,
2- respiratory relaxation group,
3- foot reflex massage group,
4- a combination of respiratory relaxation and reflexology massage.
To collect data, two demographic questionnaires, and a visual analog scale were used.
The participants of the 4 groups were not meaningfully different in terms of age, BMI, duration of surgical operation, gender, job, education, place of residency, number of chest tubes, history of operation (P = 0.99, 0.31, 0.06, 0.81, 0.97, 0.96, 0.17, 0.10, 0.89 respectively).
The mean scores of pain intensity during chest tube removal, and 15 min after chest tube removal were not statistically different among the 4 groups. However, just after chest tube removal, the mean scores of pain intensity differed meaningfully among four groups (P = 0.008).
The authors concluded that the results showed that reflexology massage and respiratory relaxation both reduce pain immediately after chest tube removal in heart surgery patients. Also, the combination of these two techniques was more effective in reducing patients’ average pain.
Double blind?
Really?
How did they do that?
Here is their description:
“For the blinding purpose of the study, a nurse who worked at the ICU had to record the pain intensity and the data, so the possible researcher bias did not impact the results. Also, the patients knew the concept of the study but did not know that there were whether in single relaxation groups or mixed methods groups and did not know that other patients had different methods used for them. Also, the pain intensity data for the control group was routinely checked by the nurses, and along with the fact that they had no information that some of the patients were in the intervention groups and received complementary and alternative therapies, therefore, their data were also considered blinded. Therefore, the study could have their initial aim to use the double-blinded design.”
Double blind usually means that the therapist and the patient were masked as to the group alloca. Blinding the nurse is fine, but the therapists were not blind and could therefore have influenced the patients via verbal and non-verbal communications.
According to the authors, patients did not know whether they were “in single relaxation groups or mixed methods groups”. I think that cannot be true. Even if it were, what about the control group? Surely every patient knows whether or not he/she receives a reflexology massage!
It follows, I think, that the study was NOT double-blind, not even single-blind!
Does that matter?
Yes!
Firstly, I don’t want to be misled in this way.
Secondly, as blinding did not happern, the findings can be explaind by the effects of patient expectation and might therefore NOT be the result of the therapies. In other words, the conclusions drawn by the authors are not warranted.
Two fatalities have been reported evidently caused by Thai massage. Thai singer Chayada Prao-hom, also known as Ping Chayada, 20, died in a hospital in the northeastern city of Udon Thani on December 8 after claiming she was left paralysed by a series of three “neck-twisting” massage sessions. Ping Chayada posted a poignant final message on social media as she battled ill-health following the massage: “The first time I got a massage, my symptoms were normal. I went for another massage, the same therapist in the same room, this time twisting my neck. After two weeks, I started to have very, very tight pain to the point that I couldn’t lie on my back or stomach. I’ve been learning massage since I was a child. I really like massage. I thought it was just another side effect of the massage, this kind of body pain. I went again. But this new person massaged hard and it was swollen and bruised for a week. After that, I took medicine to relieve the symptoms all the time.” The talented star died on Sunday December 8.
Just a day earlier, on December 7, a male Singaporean tourist, 52-year-old Lee Mun Tuk, died in Phuket after a 45-minute oil body massage – following which he reportedly went into cardiac arrest and could not be revived.
Harnelis, a massage therapist with the White Swallow Massage School in the city of Medan in neighbouring Indonesia, said that, while the deaths were tragic, they were not surprising. “Neck and back massage is inherently dangerous and deals with the most vulnerable part of the body,” she said. “You can’t do it carelessly, you have to do it keeping in mind where all the veins and blood vessels are. If you get it wrong, it can be fatal.”
Singer Prao-hom wrote that she had endured two “neck-twisting” sessions and a “heavy handed” third massage at a local parlour before experiencing numbness which spread through her body. She reportedly first went to the parlour, which had the required certification under Thai law, to relieve stiffness in her neck, but found that her symptoms continued to worsen. She was rushed to intensive care but died just two weeks later. Following an autopsy, her cause of death was listed as sepsis, a swollen spinal cord and a fungal infection.
The death of the singer has sparked an urgent investigation by the Thai Department of Health Service Support (DHSS). In the meantime, medical experts are warning of the dangers posed by violent manoeuvres given by poorly trained or unlicensed practitioners.
Thai massage is a widely used massage technique in Thailand and is accepted by the Thai Ministry of Public Health. The technique can be described to be a kind of acupressure massage. Even though there is very little reliable evidence, it is said to be effective for a wide range of conditions, e.g.:
Increased range of motion. Thai massage combines compression, acupressure, and passive stretching. These increase the range of motion in your joints and muscles. This can also improve your posture.
Helps with back pain. Thai massage tends to focus on areas that can contribute to back pain, like the inner thigh and abdomen. However, if you have constant back pain, it’s best to visit a doctor before getting any type of massage.
Reduces headache intensity. One study showed that nine sessions of traditional Thai massage in a 3-week period can reduce painful headaches in people who have chronic tension headaches or migraines.
Lowers stress. In another study, researchers showed that Thai massage reduced stress, especially when combined with plenty of rest.
Helps stroke patients. A 2012 study suggested that stroke patients who get Thai massage regularly may be better able to recover the ability to do daily activities. They may also have lower pain levels and sleep better.
Other benefits of Thai massage may include:
- Better sleep
- Better relaxation
- Improved digestion
- Calm mind or increased mindfulness
As always with such news reports, many essential details are missing for the two cases reported above. What seems obvious, however, is that the massage itself, even tough occasionally forceful, is not the main danger of Thai massage. The fatal complications seem to occur after spinal manipulation and are thus akin to the ones of chiropractic manipulations.
