Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Manual Therapy for the Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Abstract

Abstract Objective The objective of our study was to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of manual therapy in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), providing a reference value for clinical decision-making. Method Studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of manual therapy in patients with GERD were searched through Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP China Science and Technology Journal Database, China Biology Medicine Database, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, OVID Medline, and Embase. Two researchers independently reviewed the literature, extracted data, and performed a risk of bias analysis using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, and conducted meta-analysis analysis and publication bias evaluation, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool 26 was used to rate the caliber of the data in this meta-analysis. Results This study included 11 RCTs. Meta-analysis showed that the manual therapy group had a higher total effective rate (odds ratio [OR] = 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI; 3.01, 7.14], p < 0.00001) and better Reflux Disease Questionnaire scores {weighted mean difference (WMD) = −1.59, 95% CI [−2.85, −0.33], p = 0.01} than the control group. The subgroup analysis showed significant differences in improving the total effective rate in manual therapy versus Western medicine, manual therapy versus Chinese medicine decoction, manual therapy + Western medicine versus Western medicine, and manual therapy + conventional treatment versus conventional treatment groups. Among the 11 trials, 5 reported adverse events, and all RCTs had the possibility of publication bias. Subgroup analysis shows that the differences in age could significantly influence heterogeneity; The GRADE analysis revealed that the overall quality of evidence for all outcome indicators was low and did not support our recommendation for the outcome. Conclusion Manual therapy is more effective than medication therapy alone in relieving GERD symptoms. Furthermore, conventional therapy combined with manual therapy was found to be even more effective. Hence, it is crucial to consider these findings when applying manual therapy to GERD patients to enhance treatment outcomes. Future studies must address issues such as study quality, treatment duration, and generalizability.