Systematic review and meta-analysis of reflexology for people with multiple sclerosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Research on reflexology therapy for multiple sclerosis (MS) is limited, and the evaluation is mixed. Our aim is to confirm the efficacy of reflexology therapy for MS. METHODS: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines were followed. The search strategy was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Science Citation Index. The quality of the included trials was assessed by the Cochrane Handbook. The main results were summarized and analyzed in RevMan 5.4. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in the final analysis. There were significant differences [mean difference (MD) –0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.37 to –0.43, heterogeneity I(2) = 0%] between the Precision Reflexology and Sham Reflexology groups in visual analogue scale pain. There was a significant difference (MD –1.00, 95% CI –1.42 to –0.58, heterogeneity I(2) = 93%) between the Precision Reflexology and Sham Reflexology groups on the fatigue severity scale. There was no difference between the Precision Reflexology and Sham Reflexology groups in physical function (MD 6.88, 95% CI –3.36 to 17.13, heterogeneity I(2) = 31%), role disorder due to physical problems (MD 10.20, 95% CI –4.91 to 25.30, heterogeneity I(2) = 0%), physical pain (MD 7.68, 95% CI –0.09 to 15.45, heterogeneity I(2) = 0%), role disorder due to emotional problems (MD 3.41, 95% CI –11.55 to 18.37, heterogeneity I(2) = 0%), energy (MD 3.27, 95% CI –4.32 to 10.87, heterogeneity I(2) = 0%), emotional well-being (MD 1.79, 95% CI –4.76 to 8.34, heterogeneity I(2) = 0%), social function (MD 5.72, 95% CI –3.48 to 14.91, heterogeneity I(2) = 0%), or general health (MD 2.63, 95% CI –4.36 to 9.62, heterogeneity I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Reflexology therapy can be used as an effective intervention for the pain and fatigue of MS patients while improving the quality of life.