Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36011223›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

The Role of Osteopathic Care in Gynaecology and Obstetrics: An Updated Systematic Review.

Nuria Ruffini, Giandomenico D'Alessandro, Annalisa Pimpinella, Matteo Galli, Tiziana Galeotti, Francesco Cerritelli, Marco Tramontano

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nuria RuffiniNational Centre Germany, Foundation COME Collaboration, 10825 Berlin, Germany.
Giandomenico D'AlessandroCentre pour l'Etude, la Recherche et la Diffusion Ostéopathiques "C.E.R.D.O.", 00199 Rome, Italy.
Annalisa PimpinellaCentre pour l'Etude, la Recherche et la Diffusion Ostéopathiques "C.E.R.D.O.", 00199 Rome, Italy.
Matteo GalliClinical-Based Human Research Department, Foundation COME Collaboration, 65121 Pescara, Italy.
Tiziana GaleottiCentre pour l'Etude, la Recherche et la Diffusion Ostéopathiques "C.E.R.D.O.", 00199 Rome, Italy.
Francesco CerritelliClinical-Based Human Research Department, Foundation COME Collaboration, 65121 Pescara, Italy.
Marco TramontanoFondazione Santa Lucia IRCCS, 00179 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6034-0638
Fondazione Roma · ITFondazione Santa Lucia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany efforts are made to find safer and more feasible therapeutic strategies to improve gynaecological care. Non-pharmacological treatments, such as osteopathic interventions, could be used as complementary strategies to better manage different gynaecological conditions. This review aims to report the effectiveness of osteopathic treatment in the gynaecology and obstetrics field, updating the previous review published in 2016. The secondary aim was to elucidate the role of somatic dysfunction (SD) in osteopathic assessment and treatment procedures, as well as their health and economic implications.

methodsAn electronic search was conducted in the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Science direct. All types of clinical studies published between May 2014 and December 2021 have been included: randomised controlled trial (RCT), controlled before/after, interrupted time series quasi RCT, case controls, case reports, case series, observational, clinical studies involving any type of osteopathic treatment, (standardised, semi-standardised or patients' need-based treatment) performed alone or in combination with other treatments, were included).

resultsA total of 76,750 were identified through database searching and other sources. After the removal of duplicates, 47,655 papers were screened based on title and abstract. A total of 131 full-text articles were consequently assessed for eligibility. Twenty-one new articles were included in the synthesis. A total of 2632 participants with a mean age of 28.9 ± 10.5 years were included in the review.

conclusionsResults showed an effectiveness of osteopathic care in gynaecology and obstetrics, but the studies were too heterogeneous to perform quantitative analysis and make clinical recommendations. Nevertheless, osteopathic care could be considered a safe complementary approach to traditional gynaecological care.

Indexed as

gynaecologyobstetricsosteopathic manipulative treatmentsomatic dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID36011223
PMCPMC9408311
OpenAlexW4292248335

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.