ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Is Craniosacral Therapy Effective? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation between temporomandibular disorders and the history of orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) for articular cartilage repair in osteoarthritis (OA): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of osteopathic craniosacral techniques: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Short-term effects of craniosacral therapy and rhythmic movement training on developmental assessment scores and primitive reflex expression in typically developing children: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Feasibility and Acceptability of Craniosacral Therapy and Respiratory Training in Mothers of Children with Disabilities: Protocol for a Three-Arm Non-Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Immediate Effect of Craniosacral Therapy on Postpartum Neck Pain-An Experimental Study.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2026Article
- Review
- Clinical Reasoning and Practices in the Osteopathic Management of Visceral Disorders: A Grounded Theory Study in the Italian Context.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- "The Dark Side of Musculoskeletal Care": Why Do Ineffective Techniques Seem to Work? A Comprehensive Review of Complementary and Alternative Therapies.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Is Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Clinically Superior to Sham or Placebo for Patients with Neck or Low-Back Pain? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of craniosacral therapy (CST) in the management of any conditions.
methodsTwo independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases in August 2023, and extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness of CST. The PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool were used to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies. The certainty of the evidence of each outcome variable was determined using GRADEpro. Quantitative synthesis was carried out with RevMan 5.4 software using random effect models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen RCTs were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that CST produces no statistically significant or clinically relevant changes in pain and/or disability/impact in patients with headache disorders, neck pain, low back pain, pelvic girdle pain, or fibromyalgia. For non-musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis showed that CST was not effective for managing infant colic, preterm infants, cerebral palsy, or visual function deficits.
conclusionsThe qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence suggest that CST produces no benefits in any of the musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions assessed. Two RCTs suggested statistically significant benefits of CST in children. However, both studies are seriously flawed, and their findings are thus likely to be false positive.
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.