ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Osteopathic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Disorders in Term and Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of osteopathic craniosacral techniques: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The use of high-velocity, low-amplitude techniques in paediatric osteopathic care: two multinational cross-sectional surveys on clinical practice and educational curricula.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- The presence of abnormal palpatory findings in the sacrococcygeal area is correlated with chronic pelvic pain: a cross-sectional study.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Impact of touch interventions on brain activity in moderately preterm infants: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2025Article
- A Critical Appraisal of Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Meta-Research Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Model-Base Estimation of Non-Invasive Ventilation Weaning of Preterm Infants Exposed to Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Propensity-Score-Matched Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for gastrointestinal disorders in term and preterm infants. Eligible studies were searched on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl, and PEDro. Two reviewers independently assessed if the studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies with OMT compared with any kind of control in term or preterm infants to improve gastrointestinal disorders. Nine articles met the eligibility criteria, investigating OMT compared with no intervention, five involving term infants, and the remaining treating preterm infants. Five studies showed low risk of bias. In the meta-analysis, two studies were included to analyze the hours of crying due to infantile colic, showing statistically significant results (ES = −2.46 [−3.05, −1.87]; p < 0.00001). The quality of evidence was “moderate”. The other outcomes, such as time to oral feeding, meconium excretion, weight gain, and sucking, were presented in a qualitative synthesis. OMT was substantially safe, and showed efficacy in some cases, but the conflicting evidence and lack of high-quality replication studies prevent generalization. High-quality RCTs are recommended to produce better-quality evidence.
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.