Wang G, Ju H, Zhang Z, Wu X, Niu H, Zhang L, Chen L, Lou H, Yang Y. Comparative effectiveness of massage combined with lifestyle intervention and lifestyle intervention alone for simple obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Medicine (Baltimore) 2025;
104:e41074. [PMID:
39792739 PMCID:
PMC11730106 DOI:
10.1097/md.0000000000041074]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2024] [Accepted: 12/05/2024] [Indexed: 01/12/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of massage combined with lifestyle intervention and lifestyle intervention alone in patients with simple obesity.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP Database, and Wanfang Data were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Primary outcomes were body weight (BW) and body mass index (BMI). Secondary outcomes were waist circumference (WC), hip circumference (HC), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), fasting insulin (FINS), and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and adverse events.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized controlled trials were included. The meta-analysis showed that massage combined with lifestyle intervention significantly decreased BW (mean difference [MD]: -4.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.25 to -1.46; P = .005), BMI (MD: -2.65; 95% CI: -4.05 to -1.24; P = .0002), WC (MD: -3.63; 95% CI: -6.28 to -0.98; P = .007), TC (MD: -0.52; 95% CI: -0.84 to -0.20; P = .001), TG (MD: -0.23; 95% CI: -0.45 to -0.02; P = .003), LDL-C (MD: -0.48; 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.42; P < .00001), HDL-C (MD: -0.11; 95% CI: -0.17 to -0.05; P = .0004), FINS (MD: -1.64; 95% CI: -3.16 to -0.12; P = .03), and HOMA-IR (MD: -0.42; 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.18; P = .0005) compared with lifestyle intervention alone. In subgroup analyses, more obvious reduction in BMI (P = .02, I2 = 80.3%) for the children and adolescents subgroup, more obvious reduction in HC (P = .04, I2 = 76.1%) for the adults subgroup, more significant reduction in TC (P < .00001, I2 = 98.3%), LDL-C (P < .00001, I2 = 95.6%), and HDL-C (P < .0001, I2 = 94.1%) for intermittent treatment subgroup and more significant reduction in TC (P < .00001, I2 = 95.9%) and HDL-C (P < .0001, I2 = 94.1%) for treatment times ≤30 subgroup were detected.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with lifestyle intervention alone, massage combined with lifestyle intervention significantly decreased BW, BMI, WC, TC, TG, LDL-C, FINS, and HOMA-IR, but produced less effect in increasing HDL-C. And different ages, treatment intervals, and treatment times can all affect treatment outcomes.
Collapse