Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38863772›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine and Disorders: An Overview of Peer-Reviewed Publications 2018-2022.

Cameron White, Yahui Xie, Jeremy Bigham, Ava Stanczak, David Ninan, Chien-An A Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

6 authors.

Cameron WhiteDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, Kansas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Wichita, USA.
Yahui XieDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, Kansas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Wichita, USA.
Jeremy BighamDepartment of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, Kansas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Wichita, USA.
Ava StanczakDepartment of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, Kansas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Wichita, USA.
David NinanDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, Kansas College of Osteopathic Medicine, wichita, USA.
Chien-An A HuDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Kansas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Wichita, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context Osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) has been claimed to be effective in various human disorders and conditions. There have been many anecdotal claims to lend credence to the efficacy of this treatment modality. Recently, much work has been done in evidence-based, government-funded projects, and clinical trials in OMM research, and these studies have further demonstrated the efficacy of OMM as direct, integrated, or complementary mechanisms in treating various conditions. Objectives As the field of OMM research has grown significantly in the past few years, we set out to analyze the peer-reviewed publications on OMM in human disorders between January 2018 and December 2022. Methods We used keywords and terms which included "osteopath," "osteopathic," osteopathic manipulative medicine," "osteopathic manipulative treatment," and "disorder," to systematically sample two public databases, PubMed and Science Direct. After the first query was recorded, we then applied more specific and stringent criteria to identify publications that (a) were written in English, (b) contained at least one human disorder/condition treated by OMM, (c) were co-authored by at least one osteopathic physician-scientist, and (d) contained at least one OMM technique. Results Our initial sampling of databases resulted in 404 publications. After applying our screening criteria, we identified and analyzed 249 (62%; 249/404) qualified publications in "OMM and Human Disorders" We then categorized them into (a) types of publications, (b) country origins of corresponding author(s), (c) groups of disorder and condition, (d) classification of the OMM used, and (e) relating the treated conditions with the five models of OMM. We found that in the 249 publications, 158 (63%) are research articles, 66 (27%) review papers, and 25 (10%) case reports. In addition, nine countries, the United States, Italy, Brazil, Spain, France, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Australia contributed most of the publications of OMM. VOSviewer analysis identified a wide range of human disorders that were effectively treated with OMM. These included musculoskeletal, low back pain, neurological, headache, inflammation (including autoimmune conditions, COVID-19, lymphatic drainage), neonate/preterm infant disorders, anxiety, and dizziness. Conclusions Our comprehensive analysis showed that there has been a significant increase in peer-reviewed OMM publications in recent years, led by the United States osteopathic physician-scientists and European osteopathic scientists. OMM was found effective in treating not only common conditions such as pneumonia, low back pain, and musculoskeletal disorders, but also disorders such as inflammation, dizziness, headache, anxiety, and neonate/preterm infant disorders.

Indexed as

evidence-basedomm researchosteopathic manipulativepeer-reviewedvosviewer

Identifiers

PMID38863772
PMCPMC11166471

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.