ReviewCureus2023
Valid and Invalid Indications for Osteopathic Interventions: A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Practices and French Healthcare Society Recommendations.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Guidelines on diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in infants, children and adolescents: a joint consensus from Italian pediatric societies (SIP and SIGENP) -Part II: management.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Guideline
- Impact of Social Media Use on Physical, Mental, Social, and Emotional Health, Sleep Quality, Body Image, and Mood: Evidence from 21 Countries-A Systematic Literature Review with Narrative Synthesis.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the impact of manual therapy in the management of nonspecific low back pain: a scoping review of the outcomes used in clinical trials.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main aim of this study was to determine the level of evidence in the literature for the main indications of osteopathy as recommended by the French osteopathy societies. This systematic review followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and evaluated articles published between January 2012 and January 2022 with one modification: when level one evidence studies were available, level two to five studies were excluded. Sources included PubMed, the Cochrane library, the French National Health Authority (HAS) and its affiliates. Inclusion criteria were level one published studies on the indications for osteopathic treatment in French and English, and level two to three studies when no level one studies were available. The level of evidence assessment was based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence classification. The primary outcome was the level of evidence in the literature supporting osteopathic practices. The secondary outcome was to assess French professional osteopathy recommendations and French HAS guidelines in relation to the scientific literature. A total of 51 articles and nine recommendations from the HAS and its affiliates met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Analysis of the studies revealed 41 osteopathic indications from French osteopathy societies for musculoskeletal, neurosensory, psychological, pediatric, gynecological, digestive, and pulmonary disorders. High-level scientific evidence supported the use of osteopathy for low back pain, sciatica, cervical radiculopathy, and ankle sprain. There was moderate evidence for tension headache, temporomandibular joint disorder, endometriosis, and low back and pelvic pain in pregnant women. HAS recommended five indications, while nine indications were supported in the scientific literature. Osteopathy has been shown to have evidence-based benefits for a range of conditions, in particular for musculoskeletal and neurosensory disorders.
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.