PainScience.com Sensible advice for aches, pains & injuries
 
 

microblog

Two different takes on the same massage evidence

Paul Ingraham ARCHIVEDMicroblog posts are archived and rarely updated. In contrast, most long-form articles on PainScience.com are updated regularly over the years.

Recently the (Australian) Association of Massage Therapy published a review of massage research that reeks of industry boosterism. Although it contains some perfectly good information, there’s also a conspicuous failure to acknowledge the poor quality and limitations of most of the evidence. In several cases they’ve made too much of the conclusions of junky reviews of thin science that provide faint praise for massage at best. Rather than reporting such evidence as damning, or at least an absence of evidence, it is applauded and cited in a way that, to most readers, just makes massage therapy look good and science-y.

That was my first impression. For much more detailed and specific impression, I’m linking to Nick Ng of Massage & Fitness Magazine, who quickly produced a more balanced review of some of the papers featured prominently in the AMT’s review… while I was off getting dental work done and writing a review of my new MacBook Pro, because I frankly needed a break from pain and therapy science. 😉

This is the MICROBLOG: small posts about interesting stuff that comes up while I’m updating & upgrading dozens of featured articles on PainScience.com. Follow along on Twitter, Facebook, or RSS. Sorry, no email subscription option at this time, but it’s in the works.