Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25068560›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2015

Pregnancy Research on Osteopathic Manipulation Optimizing Treatment Effects: the PROMOTE study.

Kendi L Hensel, Steve Buchanan, Sarah K Brown, Mayra Rodriguez, des Anges Cruser

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Spinning BabiesEuropean journal of midwifery · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kendi L HenselDepartment of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX. Electronic address: kendi.hensel@unthsc.edu.
Steve BuchananDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX.
Sarah K BrownDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX.
Mayra RodriguezDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX.
des Anges CruserDepartment of Medical Education, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX.
University of North Texas · US

Funding

Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine in Pregnancy: Physiologic and Clinical EffectsK23AT003304 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR · PI HENSEL, KENDI LEE · 2006 to 2010
$759k
NCCIH NIH HHS K23 AT003304NCCIH NIH HHS K23AT003304NCCIH NIH HHS K23AT3304-4S1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to reduce low back pain and improve functioning during the third trimester in pregnancy and to improve selected outcomes of labor and delivery. STUDY

designPregnancy research on osteopathic manipulation optimizing treatment effects was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 400 women in their third trimester. Women were assigned randomly to usual care only (UCO), usual care plus OMT (OMT), or usual care plus placebo ultrasound treatment (PUT). The study included 7 treatments over 9 weeks. The OMT protocol included specific techniques that were administered by board-certified OMT specialists. Outcomes were assessed with the use of self-report measures for pain and back-related functioning and medical records for delivery outcomes.

resultsThere were 136 women in the OMT group: 131 women in the PUT group and 133 women in the UCO group. Characteristics at baseline were similar across groups. Findings indicate significant treatment effects for pain and back-related functioning (P < .001 for both groups), with outcomes for the OMT group similar to that of the PUT group; however, both groups were significantly improved compared with the UCO group. For secondary outcome of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, there were no differences among the groups.

conclusionOMT was effective for mitigating pain and functional deterioration compared with UCO; however, OMT did not differ significantly from PUT. This may be attributed to PUT being a more active treatment than intended. There was no higher likelihood of conversion to high-risk status based on treatment group. Therefore, OMT is a safe, effective adjunctive modality to improve pain and functioning during the third trimester.

Indexed as

Manipulation, OsteopathicBiomedical ResearchFemaleHumansLow Back PainPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy Trimester, ThirdYoung Adultlow back painosteopathic manipulationpregnancy

Identifiers

PMID25068560
PMCPMC4275366
OpenAlexW2049612337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.