Effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment for pediatric conditions: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is commonly used by osteopaths and osteopathic physicians to manage a large variety of pediatric complaints. OBJECTIVE: The current study reviewed the literature to determine the effectiveness of OMT for all pediatric complaints. METHODS: A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) unrestricted by language or publication status was performed in July 2020 in electronic and ongoing trials databases. Included studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) instrument. Mean difference or standard mean difference and overall effect size were calculated. Data were synthesized using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Forty-seven RCTs examining 37 pediatric conditions were reviewed. Twenty-three studies reported significant favorable outcomes for OMT relative to the control intervention, and 14 additional studies reported non-significant outcomes, which suggested potential favorable effects of OMT. Fifteen of the studies were judged to have a low RoB, 12 had high risk, and the remainder had unclear RoB. Using GRADE, there was moderate evidence for the effectiveness of OMT for 13 of the 43 comparisons, particularly for length of hospital stay for preterm infants, but no high-quality evidence for any condition. CONCLUSIONS: Although a number of studies indicated positive results with use of OMT, few pediatric conditions have been investigated in more than one study, which results in no high-quality evidence for any condition. Additional research may change estimates of effect, and larger, high-quality RCTs focusing on a smaller range of conditions are recommended. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42020162479.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back and pelvic girdle pain during and after pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common complaint during pregnancy. This study examined the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for LBP in pregnant or postpartum women. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials unrestricted by language were reviewed. Outcomes were pain and functional status. Mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) and overall effect size were calculated. RESULTS: Of 102 studies, 5 examined OMT for LBP in pregnancy and 3 for postpartum LBP. Moderate-quality evidence suggested OMT had a significant medium-sized effect on decreasing pain (MD, -16.65) and increasing functional status (SMD, -0.50) in pregnant women with LBP. Low-quality evidence suggested OMT had a significant moderate-sized effect on decreasing pain (MD, -38.00) and increasing functional status (SMD, -2.12) in postpartum women with LBP. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests OMT produces clinically relevant benefits for pregnant or postpartum women with LBP. Further research may change estimates of effect, and larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with robust comparison groups are recommended.

Muscle energy technique for non-specific low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering due to pain and reduced function, as well as the societal burden due to costs of health care and lost work productivity. For the vast majority of people with LBP, no specific anatomical cause can be reliably identified. For these people with non-specific LBP there are numerous treatment options, few of which have been shown to be effective in reducing pain and disability. The muscle energy technique (MET) is a treatment technique used predominantly by osteopaths, physiotherapists and chiropractors which involves alternating periods of resisted muscle contractions and assisted stretching. To date it is unclear whether MET is effective in reducing pain and improving function in people with LBP. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of MET in the treatment of people with non-specific LBP compared with control interventions, with particular emphasis on subjective pain and disability outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers were searched from inception to May and June 2014 together with reference checking and citation searching of relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of MET on pain or disability in patients with non-specific LBP were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed where clinical homogeneity was sufficient. The quality of the evidence for each comparison was assessed with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: There were 12 randomised controlled trials with 14 comparisons included in the review, with a total sample of 500 participants across all comparisons. Included studies were typically very small (n = 20 to 72), all except one were assessed as being at high risk of bias, and all reported short-term outcomes. For the purposes of pooling, studies were divided into seven clinically homogenous comparisons according to the patient population (acute or chronic LBP) and the nature of the control intervention. Most of the comparisons (five out of seven) included only one study, one comparison had two studies, and one comparison included seven studies.The meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence that MET provided no additional benefit when added to other therapies on the outcomes of chronic pain and disability in the short-term (weighted mean difference (WMD) for pain 0.00, 95% CI -2.97 to 2.98 on a 100-point scale; standardised mean difference (SMD) for disability -0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.08, 7 studies, 232 participants). There was low-quality evidence that MET produced no clinically relevant differences in pain compared to sham MET (mean difference (MD) 14.20, 95% CI -10.14 to 38.54, 1 study, 20 participants). For the comparison of MET to other conservative therapies for acute non-specific LBP, there was very low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the outcomes of pain (MD -10.72, 95% CI -32.57 to 11.13, 2 studies, 88 participants) and functional status (MD 0.87, 95% CI -6.31 to 8.05, 1 study, 60 participants). For the comparison of MET to other conservative therapies for chronic non-specific LBP, there was low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the outcomes of pain (MD -9.70, 95% CI -20.20 to 0.80, 1 study, 30 participants) and functional status (MD -4.10, 95% CI -9.53 to 1.33, 1 study, 30 participants). There was low-quality evidence of no clinically relevant difference for the addition of MET to other interventions for acute non-specific LBP for the outcome of pain (MD -3, 95% CI -11.37 to 5.37, 1 study, 40 participants) and low-quality evidence of an effect in favour of MET for functional status (MD -17.6, 95% CI -27.05 to -8.15, 1 study, 40 participants). For chronic non-specific LBP, there was low-quality evidence of an effect in favour of MET for the addition of MET to other interventions for the outcomes of pain (MD -34.1, 95% CI -38.43 to -29.77, 1 study, 30 participants) and functional status (MD -22, 95% CI -27.41 to -16.59, 1 study, 30 participants). Lastly, there was low-quality evidence of no difference for the addition of MET to another manual intervention compared to the same intervention with other conservative therapies for the outcomes of pain (MD 5.20, 95% CI -3.03 to 13.43, 1 study, 20 participants) and functional status (MD 6.0, 95% CI -0.49 to 12.49, 1 study, 20 participants).No study reported on our other primary outcome of general well-being. Seven studies reported that no adverse events were observed, whereas the other five studies did not report any information on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of research related to testing the effectiveness of MET is poor. Studies are generally small and at high risk of bias due to methodological deficiencies. Studies conducted to date generally provide low-quality evidence that MET is not effective for patients with LBP. There is not sufficient evidence to reliably determine whether MET is likely to be effective in practice. Large, methodologically-sound studies are necessary to investigate this question.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific back pain is common, disabling, and costly. Therefore, we assessed effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in the management of nonspecific low back pain (LBP) regarding pain and functional status. METHODS: A systematic literature search unrestricted by language was performed in October 2013 in electronic and ongoing trials databases. Searches of reference lists and personal communications identified additional studies. Only randomized clinical trials were included; specific back pain or single treatment techniques studies were excluded. Outcomes were pain and functional status. Studies were independently reviewed using a standardized form. The mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and overall effect size were calculated at 3 months posttreatment. GRADE was used to assess quality of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 307 studies. Thirty-one were evaluated and 16 excluded. Of the 15 studies reviewed, 10 investigated effectiveness of OMT for nonspecific LBP, 3 effect of OMT for LBP in pregnant women, and 2 effect of OMT for LBP in postpartum women. Twelve had a low risk of bias. Moderate-quality evidence suggested OMT had a significant effect on pain relief (MD, -12.91; 95% CI, -20.00 to -5.82) and functional status (SMD, -0.36; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.14) in acute and chronic nonspecific LBP. In chronic nonspecific LBP, moderate-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favour of OMT regarding pain (MD, -14.93; 95% CI, -25.18 to -4.68) and functional status (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.07). For nonspecific LBP in pregnancy, low-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favour of OMT for pain (MD, -23.01; 95% CI, -44.13 to -1.88) and functional status (SMD, -0.80; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.23), whereas moderate-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favour of OMT for pain (MD, -41.85; 95% CI, -49.43 to -34.27) and functional status (SMD, -1.78; 95% CI, -2.21 to -1.35) in nonspecific LBP postpartum. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant effects of OMT were found for reducing pain and improving functional status in patients with acute and chronic nonspecific LBP and for LBP in pregnant and postpartum women at 3 months posttreatment. However, larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with robust comparison groups are recommended.

Effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative therapy for managing symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common and often lifelong functional gastrointestinal disorder. There is a scarcity of effective management options for IBS. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative therapy (OMTh) for managing the symptoms of IBS. DATA SOURCES: Articles without language or publication-date restriction were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PEDro, OSTMED.DR, and Osteopathic Research Web. Search terms included irritable bowel syndrome, IBS, functional colonic disease, colon irritable, osteopath*, osteopathic manipulation, osteopathic medicine, clinical trial, and randomized clinical trial. Experts in the field of visceral osteopathy were also contacted to identify additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: The authors evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of OMTh for IBS in adults in whom IBS was diagnosed using Rome (I-III) criteria. If OMTh was not the sole intervention in the intervention group and if the same additional interventions were not applied to the control group, the study was excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Citation identification, study selection, and data extraction were independently undertaken by 2 reviewers with a data extraction form from the Cochrane Collaboration. A consensus method was used to resolve disagreements concerning the assessment of the methodologic quality of the RCTs that were reviewed. RESULTS: The search identified 10 studies that examined OMTh for patients with IBS; 5 studies (204 patients) met the inclusion criteria. All studies were assessed as having low risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration criteria, although there was heterogeneity in the outcome measures and control interventions. Three studies used visual analog scales for abdominal pain, whereas others used the IBS severity score and the Functional Bowel Disorder Severity Index. A variety of secondary outcomes were used. All studies reported more pronounced short-term improvements with OMTh compared with sham therapy or standard care only. These differences remained statistically significant after variable lengths of follow-up in 3 studies. CONCLUSION: The present systematic review provides preliminary evidence that OMTh may be beneficial in the treatment of patients with IBS. However, caution is required in the interpretation of these findings because of the limited number of studies available and the small sample sizes.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in women.

BACKGROUND: Because of its prevalence and impact on women's well-being, and its high financial costs, female LUTS is an important health problem that requires serious attention from health professionals. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to determine the clinical effects of osteopathic treatment on female lower urinary tract disorders. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was performed in May 2011 in the electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, OSTMED-DR, OSTEOPATHIC WEBRESEARCH and databases of ongoing trials. A manual search in reference lists and a personal communication with experts in the field of osteopathy was also conducted to identify additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: Only randomized clinical studies (RCT) or controlled clinical studies (CCT) were included. Inclusion criteria of the participants were female, at least 18 years old and a diagnosed female urinary tract disorder. Exclusion criteria were neurologic disorders, tumors, urinary tract infections or antibiotic treatment, and pregnancy. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently extracted the data of the studies using a standardized data extraction form. The updated Cochrane Risk of bias tool from 2011 was used to assess the methodological quality. RESULTS: The quantitative analysis shows a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement when the osteopathic intervention was compared to an untreated group. Two studies which compare OMT with the pelvic floor muscle training as a reference treatment document almost the same therapeutic effect. CONCLUSION: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis are promising and encouraging to conduct larger, rigorous osteopathic intervention studies for female urination disorders. Future studies should compare the osteopathic treatment with established standard procedures in the control group.

Why reservations remain: a critical reflection about the systematic review and meta-analysis "Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain" by Licciardone et al.

In 2005 John Licciardone, Angela Brimhall, and Linda King published a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with the title: Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain. The conclusions of systematic review and meta-analysis depend highly on the right search strategy, the quality of the included studies (internal validity), and the error-free, unbiased and transparent evaluation of the review. As illustrated by the following article Licciardone's review includes elements that could lead to biased results. It is concluded that Licciardone et al. focused too much on the statistical significance, and overlooked that the problem of the review lay not in the calculations but in the quality and compilation of the studies.