Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39430589›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024

Effectiveness of osteopathic craniosacral techniques: a meta-analysis.

Alfred Amendolara, Alexander Sheppert, Ryan Powers, Andrew Payne, Stephen Stacey, David Sant

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Immediate Effect of Craniosacral Therapy on Postpartum Neck Pain-An Experimental Study.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Alfred AmendolaraDepartment of Biomedical Science, Noorda College of Osteopathic Medicine, Provo, UT, United States.
Alexander SheppertDepartment of Biomedical Science, Noorda College of Osteopathic Medicine, Provo, UT, United States.
Ryan PowersDepartment of Biomedical Science, Noorda College of Osteopathic Medicine, Provo, UT, United States.
Andrew PayneDepartment of Biomedical Science, Noorda College of Osteopathic Medicine, Provo, UT, United States.
Stephen StaceyLa Crosse-Mayo Family Medicine Residency Program, Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, WI, United States.
David SantDepartment of Biomedical Science, Noorda College of Osteopathic Medicine, Provo, UT, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Craniosacral osteopathic manipulative medicine-also known as craniosacral therapy (CST)-is a widely taught and used component of osteopathic medicine. This paper seeks to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the clinical effectiveness of CST compared to standard care, sham treatment, or no treatment in adults and children. Methods: A search of Embase, PubMed, and Scopus was conducted on 10/29/2023 and updated on 5/8/2024. There was no restriction placed on the date of publication. A Google Scholar search was conducted to capture grey literature. Backward citation searching was also implemented. All randomized controlled trials employing CST for any clinical outcome were included. Studies not available in English as well as studies that did not report adequate data were excluded. Multiple reviewers were used to assess for inclusions, disagreements were settled by consensus. PRISMA guidelines were followed in the reporting of this meta-analysis. Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess for risk of bias. All data were extracted by multiple independent observers. Effect sizes were calculated using a Hedge's G value (standardized mean difference) and aggregated using random effects models. The GRADE system was used to assess quality of evidence. Results: The primary study outcome was the effectiveness of CST for selected outcomes as applied to non-healthy adults or children and measured by standardized mean difference effect size. Twenty-four RCTs were included in the final meta-analysis with a total of 1,613 participants. When subgroup analyses were performed by primary outcome only, no significant effects were found. When secondary outcomes were included in subgroup analyses, results showed that only Conclusions and relevance: CST demonstrated no significant effects in this meta-analysis, indicating a lack of usefulness in patient care for any of the studied indications.Pre-registration available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/54K6G. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/57t4w.

Indexed as

alternative and complementary medicinecraniosacralmanual therapyosteopathic manipulation (osteopathic manipulative treatment/osteopathic manual medicine)osteopathic medicine

Identifiers

PMID39430589
PMCPMC11487524

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.