ArticleCureus2025
A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of Osteopathic Manipulation in Academic and Community Settings.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) has a first-line recommendation from the American Academy of Family Physicians and American College of Physicians for the treatment of chronic neck and low back pain, but it remains underutilized. Understanding patterns in the use of OMT in various treatment settings can help guide strategies for improving patient access to this valuable treatment modality. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10)) and procedure (CPT) codes from a large, multicenter health system during the period of January 2022 through May 2023. We compared the volume of use between academic and community settings. Primary diagnoses and somatic symptom diagnoses were analyzed to determine indications for the use of OMT, and these indications were compared against evidence-based guidelines. Results Our search revealed 10,304 outpatient visits where OMT was utilized. OMT addressing the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine accounted for 3799 (15.07%), 4193 (16.63%), and 3891 (15.43%) of the total body regions treated during these visits. Visits utilizing OMT most commonly treated three to four body regions (4541; 44.1%), followed by five to six body regions (3004; 29.2%). Conclusions Overall, the utilization of OMT remains low across our health system. Further research is needed to determine the best support for current and future physicians to utilize OMT for evidence-based indications.
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.