Cargando…

Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the World Health Organization published benchmarks for training in osteopathy in which osteopathic visceral techniques are included. The purpose of this study was to identify and critically appraise the scientific literature concerning the reliability of diagnosis and the clinic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guillaud, Albin, Darbois, Nelly, Monvoisin, Richard, Pinsault, Nicolas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5816506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29452579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2098-8
_version_ 1783300690482823168
author Guillaud, Albin
Darbois, Nelly
Monvoisin, Richard
Pinsault, Nicolas
author_facet Guillaud, Albin
Darbois, Nelly
Monvoisin, Richard
Pinsault, Nicolas
author_sort Guillaud, Albin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In 2010, the World Health Organization published benchmarks for training in osteopathy in which osteopathic visceral techniques are included. The purpose of this study was to identify and critically appraise the scientific literature concerning the reliability of diagnosis and the clinical efficacy of techniques used in visceral osteopathy. METHODS: Databases MEDLINE, OSTMED.DR, the Cochrane Library, Osteopathic Research Web, Google Scholar, Journal of American Osteopathic Association (JAOA) website, International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (IJOM) website, and the catalog of Académie d’ostéopathie de France website were searched through December 2017. Only inter-rater reliability studies including at least two raters or the intra-rater reliability studies including at least two assessments by the same rater were included. For efficacy studies, only randomized-controlled-trials (RCT) or crossover studies on unhealthy subjects (any condition, duration and outcome) were included. Risk of bias was determined using a modified version of the quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL) in reliability studies. For the efficacy studies, the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess their methodological design. Two authors performed data extraction and analysis. RESULTS: Eight reliability studies and six efficacy studies were included. The analysis of reliability studies shows that the diagnostic techniques used in visceral osteopathy are unreliable. Regarding efficacy studies, the least biased study shows no significant difference for the main outcome. The main risks of bias found in the included studies were due to the absence of blinding of the examiners, an unsuitable statistical method or an absence of primary study outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the systematic review lead us to conclude that well-conducted and sound evidence on the reliability and the efficacy of techniques in visceral osteopathy is absent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review is registered PROSPERO 12th of December 2016. Registration number is CRD4201605286. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-018-2098-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5816506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58165062018-02-21 Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review Guillaud, Albin Darbois, Nelly Monvoisin, Richard Pinsault, Nicolas BMC Complement Altern Med Research Article BACKGROUND: In 2010, the World Health Organization published benchmarks for training in osteopathy in which osteopathic visceral techniques are included. The purpose of this study was to identify and critically appraise the scientific literature concerning the reliability of diagnosis and the clinical efficacy of techniques used in visceral osteopathy. METHODS: Databases MEDLINE, OSTMED.DR, the Cochrane Library, Osteopathic Research Web, Google Scholar, Journal of American Osteopathic Association (JAOA) website, International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (IJOM) website, and the catalog of Académie d’ostéopathie de France website were searched through December 2017. Only inter-rater reliability studies including at least two raters or the intra-rater reliability studies including at least two assessments by the same rater were included. For efficacy studies, only randomized-controlled-trials (RCT) or crossover studies on unhealthy subjects (any condition, duration and outcome) were included. Risk of bias was determined using a modified version of the quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL) in reliability studies. For the efficacy studies, the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess their methodological design. Two authors performed data extraction and analysis. RESULTS: Eight reliability studies and six efficacy studies were included. The analysis of reliability studies shows that the diagnostic techniques used in visceral osteopathy are unreliable. Regarding efficacy studies, the least biased study shows no significant difference for the main outcome. The main risks of bias found in the included studies were due to the absence of blinding of the examiners, an unsuitable statistical method or an absence of primary study outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the systematic review lead us to conclude that well-conducted and sound evidence on the reliability and the efficacy of techniques in visceral osteopathy is absent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review is registered PROSPERO 12th of December 2016. Registration number is CRD4201605286. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-018-2098-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5816506/ /pubmed/29452579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2098-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Guillaud, Albin
Darbois, Nelly
Monvoisin, Richard
Pinsault, Nicolas
Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review
title Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review
title_full Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review
title_fullStr Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review
title_short Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review
title_sort reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5816506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29452579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2098-8
work_keys_str_mv AT guillaudalbin reliabilityofdiagnosisandclinicalefficacyofvisceralosteopathyasystematicreview
AT darboisnelly reliabilityofdiagnosisandclinicalefficacyofvisceralosteopathyasystematicreview
AT monvoisinrichard reliabilityofdiagnosisandclinicalefficacyofvisceralosteopathyasystematicreview
AT pinsaultnicolas reliabilityofdiagnosisandclinicalefficacyofvisceralosteopathyasystematicreview