Comparative effectiveness of massage combined with lifestyle intervention and lifestyle intervention alone for simple obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

<h4>Background</h4>This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of massage combined with lifestyle intervention and lifestyle intervention alone in patients with simple obesity.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.