The effects of fascial manipulation on pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 1.6 Q2 REHABILITATION
Robert Trybulski, Gracjan Olaniszyn, Małgorzata Smoter, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Andriy Vovkanych, Adrian Kużdzał
{"title":"The effects of fascial manipulation on pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Robert Trybulski, Gracjan Olaniszyn, Małgorzata Smoter, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Andriy Vovkanych, Adrian Kużdzał","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2025.2486110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the effects of fascial manipulation (FM) on pain alleviation in adults, providing valuable insights for future research and practitioners by addressing a significant gap in the existing literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review with meta-analysis. Key databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched for relevant studies. The eligibility criteria required randomized clinical trials involving adults (>18 years) with musculoskeletal pain, who participated in FM, and included either true control or active control groups as comparators. To assess the risk of bias, the PEDro scale was used, while the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE scale. Out of the initial pool of 138 studies, 15 were determined to be eligible for inclusion in this systematic review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed significant favoring effect for the FM compared to the active-control group in pain-related outcomes (ES = -0.80, 95% CI -1.30 to -0.29, <i>p</i> = 0.002, I<sup>2</sup>  = 85%). The certainty of evidence, as determined by the GRADE assessment, was rated as very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the included studies provide evidence of very low certainty - given the small sample sizes, lack of blinding, and significant limitations in the intervention - the meta-analysis suggests that FM may potentially be beneficial in reducing pain associated with various musculoskeletal conditions. However, more robust research is needed to strengthen these findings, with a focus on increasing the number of blinded studies, reducing methodological heterogeneity, and further exploring the underlying mechanisms that may explain the observed trends in the evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2025.2486110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the effects of fascial manipulation (FM) on pain alleviation in adults, providing valuable insights for future research and practitioners by addressing a significant gap in the existing literature.

Methods: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Key databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched for relevant studies. The eligibility criteria required randomized clinical trials involving adults (>18 years) with musculoskeletal pain, who participated in FM, and included either true control or active control groups as comparators. To assess the risk of bias, the PEDro scale was used, while the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE scale. Out of the initial pool of 138 studies, 15 were determined to be eligible for inclusion in this systematic review.

Results: Results showed significant favoring effect for the FM compared to the active-control group in pain-related outcomes (ES = -0.80, 95% CI -1.30 to -0.29, p = 0.002, I2  = 85%). The certainty of evidence, as determined by the GRADE assessment, was rated as very low.

Conclusions: Although the included studies provide evidence of very low certainty - given the small sample sizes, lack of blinding, and significant limitations in the intervention - the meta-analysis suggests that FM may potentially be beneficial in reducing pain associated with various musculoskeletal conditions. However, more robust research is needed to strengthen these findings, with a focus on increasing the number of blinded studies, reducing methodological heterogeneity, and further exploring the underlying mechanisms that may explain the observed trends in the evidence.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of original research, case reports, and reviews of the literature that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of manual therapy, clinical research, therapeutic practice, and academic training. In addition, each issue features an editorial written by the editor or a guest editor, media reviews, thesis reviews, and abstracts of current literature. Areas of interest include: •Thrust and non-thrust manipulation •Neurodynamic assessment and treatment •Diagnostic accuracy and classification •Manual therapy-related interventions •Clinical decision-making processes •Understanding clinimetrics for the clinician
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信