ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Manipulative Treatment of Myofascial Pain Syndrome: A Network Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Myofascial release therapy in patients with cervical myofascial pain syndrome: A randomized-controlled trial.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Five Critical Queries on Network Meta-Analysis: "Effective Yet Insignificant" Manipulative Therapy for Myofascial Pain Syndrome? [Response to Letter].Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Five Critical Queries on Network Meta-Analysis: "Effective Yet Insignificant" Manipulative Therapy for Myofascial Pain Syndrome? [Letter].Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Exploring fascia in myofascial pain syndrome: an integrative model of mechanisms.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common condition. Manual therapy is preferred over other invasive treatments due to its noninvasiveness and safety, but evidence for its effectiveness is lacking. We here conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trial studies related to manipulative therapy for MPS and conducted a network meta-analysis to provide a basis for clinical applications and experimental studies. Methods: Reports on randomized controlled trials of noninvasive therapy for MPS deposited in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, Chinese Science Citation Database(CSCD), Chinese Citation Database(CCD), Chinese Biomedical Database, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from their respective inception dates until November 10, 2024, were retrieved. A network meta-analysis was performed using Rv4.2.0 software. Results: Fourteen studies involving 588 patients overall were included. The interventions included pain point compression, massage, and ischemic compression. Visual analogue scale scores were reported in 12 studies and the pressure pain threshold was reported in five studies. The outcomes demonstrated that manipulation had a notable effect, although not statistically significant, as compared with conventional treatment and placebo. Overall, the effect of pain-point compression was favorable. The results were stable, with no significant publication bias. Conclusion: Manipulation was an effective treatment for MPS, but the effects were not statistically significant, based on the findings of this study. Owing to issues such as uneven methodological quality and the small sample size of the included studies, further high-quality multicenter, large-sample, randomized double-blind controlled trials are required to verify the reliability of this conclusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.