Table 5.
Effects of the massage therapy on CRF.
| Study | Intervention (mean ± SE) | Control (mean ± SE) | Assessment time points | Fatigue outcome measures | Description of the effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1: [33] | 20.66 ± 4.54 | 40.36 ± 9.58 | Postintervention (4 weeks) | Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) | Significant difference was identified between the intervention and control groups (p ≤ 0.01) |
| S2: [29] | 2.63 ± 1.71 | 3.61 ± 2.16 | Postintervention (3 months) | Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) | Statistical differences were identified between the intervention and control groups (p < 0.05) |
| S3: [25] | NR | NR | Postintervention (6 weeks) at visits 3 and 6 weeks | Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) and Fatigue Short Form 7a (PROMIS) |
Mixed model repeated measures analysis: the Swedish massage group showed statistically better outcomes over the light touch and the wait list control groups, as well as for superiority of the light touch over the wait list control over time (p < 0.0001) PROMIS analysis: significant improvement of fatigue for the Swedish massage group and the light touch group over 6 weeks, while remaining the same for the wait list control group |
| S4: [27] | 1.20 ± 1.44 | 2.33 ± 1.65 | Postinterventions (every chemotherapy cycle) | Fatigue: Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) | Differences were observed between the intervention and control groups in the onset and first, second, and third measurements (p < 0.05) |
| S5: [32] |
W2: 3.36 ± 0.24 W3: 3.75 ± 0.24 W4: 3.57 ± 0.24 |
W2: 4.95 ± 0.24 W3: 4.63 ± 0.24 W4: 4.23 ± 0.24 |
Postintervention(4 weeks) | MD Anderson Symptom Inventory | Significant reduction in fatigue severity was identified in the intervention group compared with the control group beginning at weeks 2 and 3 (p < 0.01) No statistically significant differences between the two groups were identified for the severity of fatigue at week 4 (p=0.15) |
| S6: [22] | 41.3 ± 4.9 | 43.4 ± 7.0 | Postintervention | Fatigue: Profile of Mood States (POMS) Questionnaire (fatigue subscale) | Significant reduction in disturbance of mood and fatigue were observed after manual therapy (p < 0.001) |
| S7: [31] | 5.9 ± 2.8 | LFM G: 5.4 ± 3 Control G: 6 ± 2.8 |
Postintervention (4 weeks) | Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) | Significant reductions in fatigue severity in the intervention group was observed compared with the control group (p < 0.01) and the LFM group (p=0.02) |
| S8: [26] |
BFI: 3.0 ± 2.2 Daily fatigue diaries: 4.5 ± 2.1 |
BFI: Modified Massage G: 3.6 ± 2.8 Control G: 2.5 ± 1.5 Daily fatigue diaries Polarity G: 4.5 ± 2.8 Control G: 3.2 ± 1.8 |
Postintervention (4 weeks) | Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Daily fatigue diaries |
BFI analysis: participants who received modified massage demonstrated a smaller increase in fatigue assessment of 0.01 points (<1%) compared with an average increase in fatigue assessment of 0.25 points (13%) in the standard care group during weeks 1 to 3 Daily fatigue diaries analysis: the patients randomized to modified massage had a greater increase (0.59 point) in CRF than the standard care group (0.39 point) across all 3 weeks |
| S9 [23] |
T2: 18.2 ± 14.8 T3: 18.9 ± 14.8 |
T2: 27.9 ± 17.2 T3: 33.8 ± 16.4 |
Postintervention (5 weeks) | Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) | Improvement of tiredness nearly reached statistical significance immediately after intervention (T2; p=0.056). A better improvement of tiredness was identified at T3. Statistically significant difference was identified between groups at follow-up (p=0.01). |
| S10: [24] | NR | NR | Postintervention (5 weeks) | Giessen Inventory of Complaints (GBB; fatigue subscale) | Fatigue was improved at the end of the treatment (p=0.06). Statistically significant difference was identified in the intervention group compared with the control group at week 11 (p=0.048). |
Note. NR = not reported.