Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33062548›Full record

ReviewCureus2020

The Cranial Bowl in the New Millennium and Sutherland's Legacy for Osteopathic Medicine: Part 2.

Bruno Bordoni, Stevan Walkowski, Bruno Ducoux, Filippo Tobbi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bruno BordoniPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Foundation Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, ITA.
Stevan WalkowskiOsteopathic Manipulative Medicine, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine-Dublin, Dublin, USA.
Bruno DucouxOsteopathy, Formation Recherche Osteopathie Prévention, Bordeaux, FRA.
Filippo TobbiOsteopathy, Poliambulatorio Medico e Odontoiatrico, Varese, ITA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cranial osteopathic medicine is practiced all over the world, respecting the dictates of the creator, Dr Sutherland. Despite the current manual approach faithfully follows the theoretical and practical bases that make up the cranial model of the last century, there are many scientific evidences that highlight the criticalities of the same model. In the first part we reviewed the role of the meninges and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), as well as we discussed some rhythms present in the central nervous system; these latter elements are the pillars to support the theoretical idea of the movement of the skull evaluated and palpated by the osteopath. In this second part we will review the mechanical characteristics of other structures that make up the cranial system, highlighting new perspectives for clinical practice, thanks to the most recent data derived from scientific research.

Indexed as

craniocraniosacralfasciamanual therapyosteopathic

Identifiers

PMID33062548
PMCPMC7556686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.