Massage therapy for low back pain: a systematic review

CRD COMMENTARY: The review question and selection criteria for primary studies are clearly explained. Useful study details are presented in text and tables. The decision to combine studies by narrative synthesis is appropriate given the heterogeneity of primary material. Although some details of the search strategy are provided, the search terms used are not mentioned, so it would not be possible for the reader to replicate this search. The author does not mention accessing more specialist sources that are relevant for the field of complementary therapies (i.e. AMED, and the database of the Research Council for Complementary Medicine). Although he mentions that languages other than English were considered, the specific languages are not listed, so it is difficult to get an idea of the coverage of the review. Although some aspects of study validity are mentioned in the discussion, criteria are not used systematically for assessment, and a more systematic assessment would have been useful, particularly given the author's comments on the methodological flaws of the included trials. The author's conclusions appear to follow on from the evidence presented.