ReviewCureus2020
The Cranial Bowl in the New Millennium and Sutherland's Legacy for Osteopathic Medicine: Part 1.
Review in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- Neurophysiology, Neuro-Immune Interactions, and Mechanobiology in Osteopathy in the Cranial Field: An Evidence-Informed Perspective for a Scientific Rationale.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Fascial Nomenclature: Update 2022.Cureus · 2022Review
- Fascial Nomenclature: Update 2021, Part 1.Cureus · 2021Review
- Fascial Nomenclature: Update 2021, Part 2.Cureus · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A theoretical model that does not evolve with new information deriving from scientific research, by changing the assumptions from which it was born, becomes a philosophy; the scientist becomes a scholarch. Cranial manual osteopathic medicine is very controversial, although it is commonly practiced, from the clinician to the nonmedical health worker. The article, divided into two parts, reviews the assumptions with which the cranial model was created, highlighting the scientific innovations and new anatomical-physiological reflections. In the first part we will review the synthesis and movement of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), the movement of the central and peripheral nervous system; we will highlight the mechanical characteristics of the meninges. The aim of the article is to highlight the need to renew the existing cranial model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.