Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the available clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for different conditions. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). PROSPERO CRD42020170983. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed usi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bagagiolo, Donatella, Rosa, Debora, Borrelli, Francesca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9021775/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35414546
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053468
_version_ 1784689910383378432
author Bagagiolo, Donatella
Rosa, Debora
Borrelli, Francesca
author_facet Bagagiolo, Donatella
Rosa, Debora
Borrelli, Francesca
author_sort Bagagiolo, Donatella
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To summarise the available clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for different conditions. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). PROSPERO CRD42020170983. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed using seven databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, JBI, Prospero and Cochrane Library, from their inception until November 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: SRs and MAs of randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of OMT for any condition were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The data were independently extracted by two authors. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and MAs. The overview was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. RESULTS: The literature search revealed nine SRs or MAs conducted between 2013 and 2020 with 55 primary trials involving 3740 participants. The SRs reported a wide range of conditions including acute and chronic non-specific low back pain (NSLBP, four SRs), chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP, one SR), chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP, one SR), paediatric (one SR), neurological (primary headache, one SR) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS, one SR). Although with a different effect size and quality of evidence, MAs reported that OMT is more effective than comparators in reducing pain and improving functional status in acute/chronic NSLBP, CNSNP and CNCP. Due to small sample size, presence of conflicting results and high heterogeneity, questionable evidence existed on OMT efficacy for paediatric conditions, primary headache and IBS. No adverse events were reported in most SRs. According to AMSTAR-2, the methodological quality of the included SRs was rated low or critically low. CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available SRs and MAs, promising evidence suggests the possible effectiveness of OMT for musculoskeletal disorders. Limited and inconclusive evidence occurs for paediatric conditions, primary headache and IBS. Further well-conducted SRs and MAs are needed to confirm and extend the efficacy and safety of OMT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9021775
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90217752022-05-04 Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews Bagagiolo, Donatella Rosa, Debora Borrelli, Francesca BMJ Open Complementary Medicine OBJECTIVE: To summarise the available clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for different conditions. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). PROSPERO CRD42020170983. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed using seven databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, JBI, Prospero and Cochrane Library, from their inception until November 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: SRs and MAs of randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of OMT for any condition were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The data were independently extracted by two authors. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and MAs. The overview was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. RESULTS: The literature search revealed nine SRs or MAs conducted between 2013 and 2020 with 55 primary trials involving 3740 participants. The SRs reported a wide range of conditions including acute and chronic non-specific low back pain (NSLBP, four SRs), chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP, one SR), chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP, one SR), paediatric (one SR), neurological (primary headache, one SR) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS, one SR). Although with a different effect size and quality of evidence, MAs reported that OMT is more effective than comparators in reducing pain and improving functional status in acute/chronic NSLBP, CNSNP and CNCP. Due to small sample size, presence of conflicting results and high heterogeneity, questionable evidence existed on OMT efficacy for paediatric conditions, primary headache and IBS. No adverse events were reported in most SRs. According to AMSTAR-2, the methodological quality of the included SRs was rated low or critically low. CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available SRs and MAs, promising evidence suggests the possible effectiveness of OMT for musculoskeletal disorders. Limited and inconclusive evidence occurs for paediatric conditions, primary headache and IBS. Further well-conducted SRs and MAs are needed to confirm and extend the efficacy and safety of OMT. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9021775/ /pubmed/35414546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053468 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Complementary Medicine
Bagagiolo, Donatella
Rosa, Debora
Borrelli, Francesca
Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews
title Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews
title_full Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews
title_short Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews
title_sort efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews
topic Complementary Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9021775/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35414546
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053468
work_keys_str_mv AT bagagiolodonatella efficacyandsafetyofosteopathicmanipulativetreatmentanoverviewofsystematicreviews
AT rosadebora efficacyandsafetyofosteopathicmanipulativetreatmentanoverviewofsystematicreviews
AT borrellifrancesca efficacyandsafetyofosteopathicmanipulativetreatmentanoverviewofsystematicreviews