4.3 Review

Chuna (or Tuina) Manual Therapy for Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2017/8218139

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Traditional Korean Medicine RAMP
  2. D program - Ministry of Health AMP
  3. Welfare through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) [HI15C0103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To review the literature and systematically evaluate the effectiveness of Chuna (or Tuina) manual therapy (C[T] MT) on pain and function for musculoskeletal disorders. Methods. We searched 15 English, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean databases using relevant keywords. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of C(T) MT for musculoskeletal disorders were considered, and we limited analyses to studies with a low-risk bias for randomization and/or allocation concealment. Results. Sixty-six RCTs with 6,170 participants were included. One sham-controlled RCT showed that C(T) MT relieved pain more effectively than a sham control (SMD -3.09 [-3.59, -2.59]). For active-controlled RCTs, pooled meta-analysis showed that C(T) MT had statistically significant effects on pain reduction, especially compared to traction (P < 0.00001), drugs (P = 0.04), and physical therapies (P < 0.0001). For functional improvement, combined effects of C(T) MT with drugs (P = 0.04) and traction (P = 0.05) also showed similar positive effects. Conclusions. This systematic review suggests that C(T) MT is safe and effective for pain reduction and functional improvement for musculoskeletal diseases; however, the evidence for functional improvement was not as strong as for pain reduction. For future studies, high-quality RCTs such as sham-controlled studies with standardized interventions are needed to provide sufficient evidence on the effects of C(T) MT for musculoskeletal diseases. Protocol registration number is CRD42016038307 04/07/2016.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available