Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39114222›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Pelvic Palpatory Tests in Manual Therapy and Osteopathy: A Critical Review of the Literature and Suggestions for New Research.

Saverio Colonna, Marco Mazzanti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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. Article
  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

2 authors.

Saverio ColonnaOrthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Bologna, ITA.
Marco MazzantiEducation, Osteopathic Spine Center Education, Bologna, ITA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Manual therapists apply physical interventions to the entire structure of the body to promote healing, prevent pathologies, and improve patient health. In osteopathic practice, palpatory evaluation is considered a fundamental clinical practice requirement for identifying somatic dysfunction. Most of the articles published in this area have failed to demonstrate a level of reproducibility that supports palpation in evidence-based clinical practice. When considering the poor reliability of the palpatory tests highlighted in the literature, a discrepancy is noted with what is known about the tactile sensitivity of human hands. For static touch, the minimum size that can be detected, in the absence of applied movement or vibration, is approximately 0.2 mm. Yet, it seems that this high level of precision is insufficient to ensure reliability in the tests used to evaluate osteopathic somatic dysfunction. The purpose that underscores this article is to determine how these two contradictory elements, high sensitivity and low reliability, can be present in palpatory tests. The article reports the literature findings regarding palpatory tests of pelvic, which is an important structure for clinical purposes. Additionally, a critical review of how these studies were conducted is provided to identify any elements that may justify the obtained results. Following recent accredited guidelines present in the literature, we propose suggestions on vision training methods, manual perception refinement training, the search for anatomical markers, and the position of the examiner in relation to the examinee that may be useful for future studies on the topic covered by the article.

Indexed as

manual therapyosteopathypalpatory agreementpalpatory evaluation protocolpalpatory testspalpatory trainingrefinement of palpatory perceptionreliability of palpatory testsreproducibility of palpatory testssomatic dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID39114222
PMCPMC11304509

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.