Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35956072›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment for Pediatric Conditions: An Update of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pawel Posadzki, Bhone Myint Kyaw, Arkadiusz Dziedzic, Edzard Ernst

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Use of osteopathic manipulation techniques for management of acute otitis media in pediatric patients: a scoping review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Pawel PosadzkiKleijnen Systematic Reviews, 6 Escrick Business Park, York YO19 6FD, UK.
Bhone Myint KyawLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Ave, Singapore 639798, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-1750-0330
Arkadiusz DziedzicDepartment of Restorative Dentistry with Endodontics, Medical University of Silesia, 40-0055 Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0022-8382
Edzard ErnstComplementary Medicine, University of Exeter, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK.
Kleijnen Systematic Reviews (United Kingdom) · GBMedical University of Silesia · PLNanyang Technological University · SGUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) continues to be used for a range of diseases in children.

objectivesThe aim of this paper is to update our previous systematic review (SR) initially published in 2013 by critically evaluating the evidence for or against this treatment.

methodsEleven databases were searched (January 2012 to November 2021). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of OMT in pediatric patients compared with any type of controls were considered. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used. In addition, the quality of the evidence was rated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

resultsThirteen trials met the eligibility criteria, of which four could be subjected to a meta-analysis. The findings show that, in preterm infants, OMT has little or no effect on reducing the length of hospital stay (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 0.39; very low certainty of evidence) when compared with usual care alone. Only one study (8.3%) was judged to have a low risk of bias and showed no effects of OMT on improving exclusive breastfeeding at 1 month. The methodological quality of RCTs published since 2013 has improved. However, adverse effects remain poorly reported.

conclusionsThe quality of the primary trials of OMT has improved during recent years. However, the quality of the totality of the evidence remains low or very low. Therefore, the effectiveness of OMT for selected pediatric populations remains unproven.

Indexed as

meta-analysisosteopathypediatric conditionssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35956072
PMCPMC9369972
OpenAlexW4289175832

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.