Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35414546›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2022

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

Donatella Bagagiolo, Debora Rosa, Francesca Borrelli

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
15.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Neck pain clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of the quality and quantity of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Donatella BagagioloResearch Department, Scuola Superiore di Osteopatia Italiana, Turin, Italy donatella.bagagiolo@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4749-4127
Debora RosaDepartment of Cardiovascular Neural and Metabolic Sciences, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy.
Francesca BorrelliDepartment of Pharmacy, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano · ITNational Student Clearinghouse Research Center · USUniversity of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 SOURCES: An 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 STUDIES: SRs and MAs of randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of OMT for any condition were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The 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.

Indexed as

Chronic PainIrritable Bowel SyndromeLow Back PainManipulation, OsteopathicAnalgesics, OpioidChildHeadacheHumansNeck PainSystematic Reviews as TopicAnalgesics, Opioidback paincomplementary medicinefunctional bowel disordersmigrainemusculoskeletal disorders

Identifiers

PMID35414546
PMCPMC9021775
OpenAlexW4223586198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.