Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews

Author:

Bagagiolo DonatellaORCID,Rosa Debora,Borrelli Francesca

Abstract

ObjectiveTo summarise the available clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for different conditions.DesignOverview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). PROSPERO CRD42020170983.Data sourcesAn electronic search was performed using seven databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, JBI, Prospero and Cochrane Library, from their inception until November 2021.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesSRs and MAs of randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of OMT for any condition were included.Data extraction and synthesisThe data were independently extracted by two authors. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and MAs. The overview was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.ResultsThe literature search revealed nine SRs or MAs conducted between 2013 and 2020 with 55 primary trials involving 3740 participants. The SRs reported a wide range of conditions including acute and chronic non-specific low back pain (NSLBP, four SRs), chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP, one SR), chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP, one SR), paediatric (one SR), neurological (primary headache, one SR) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS, one SR). Although with a different effect size and quality of evidence, MAs reported that OMT is more effective than comparators in reducing pain and improving functional status in acute/chronic NSLBP, CNSNP and CNCP. Due to small sample size, presence of conflicting results and high heterogeneity, questionable evidence existed on OMT efficacy for paediatric conditions, primary headache and IBS.No adverse events were reported in most SRs. According to AMSTAR-2, the methodological quality of the included SRs was rated low or critically low.ConclusionBased on the currently available SRs and MAs, promising evidence suggests the possible effectiveness of OMT for musculoskeletal disorders. Limited and inconclusive evidence occurs for paediatric conditions, primary headache and IBS. Further well-conducted SRs and MAs are needed to confirm and extend the efficacy and safety of OMT.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference47 articles.

1. WHO . Benchmark for training in osteopathy. WHO, 2010. Available: https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/BenchmarksforTraininginOsteopathy.pdf

2. Osteopathic International Alliance . The OIA Global Report: Global review of osteopathic medicine and Osteopathy, 2020. Available: https://oialliance.org/resources/oia-status-report/

3. The role of osteopathy in the Swiss primary health care system: a practice review

4. A profile of osteopathic care in private practices in the United Kingdom: A national pilot using standardised data collection

5. Primary reasons for osteopathic consultation: a prospective survey in Quebec;Morin;PLoS One,2014

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3