Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine and Disorders: An Overview of Peer-Reviewed Publications 2018–2022
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context Osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) has been claimed to be effective in various human disorders and conditions. There have been many anecdotal claims to lend credence to the efficacy of this treatment modality. Recently, much work has been done in evidence-based, government-funded projects, and clinical trials in OMM research, and these studies have further demonstrated the efficacy of OMM as direct, integrated, or complementary mechanisms in treating various conditions. Objectives As the field of OMM research has grown significantly in the past few years, we set out to analyze the peer-reviewed publications on OMM in human disorders between January 2018 and December 2022. Methods We used keywords and terms which included "osteopath," "osteopathic," osteopathic manipulative medicine," "osteopathic manipulative treatment," and "disorder," to systematically sample two public databases, PubMed and Science Direct. After the first query was recorded, we then applied more specific and stringent criteria to identify publications that (a) were written in English, (b) contained at least one human disorder/condition treated by OMM, (c) were co-authored by at least one osteopathic physician-scientist, and (d) contained at least one OMM technique. Results Our initial sampling of databases resulted in 404 publications. After applying our screening criteria, we identified and analyzed 249 (62%; 249/404) qualified publications in "OMM and Human Disorders" We then categorized them into (a) types of publications, (b) country origins of corresponding author(s), (c) groups of disorder and condition, (d) classification of the OMM used, and (e) relating the treated conditions with the five models of OMM. We found that in the 249 publications, 158 (63%) are research articles, 66 (27%) review papers, and 25 (10%) case reports. In addition, nine countries, the United States, Italy, Brazil, Spain, France, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Australia contributed most of the publications of OMM. VOSviewer analysis identified a wide range of human disorders that were effectively treated with OMM. These included musculoskeletal, low back pain, neurological, headache, inflammation (including autoimmune conditions, COVID-19, lymphatic drainage), neonate/preterm infant disorders, anxiety, and dizziness. Conclusions Our comprehensive analysis showed that there has been a significant increase in peer-reviewed OMM publications in recent years, led by the United States osteopathic physician-scientists and European osteopathic scientists. OMM was found effective in treating not only common conditions such as pneumonia, low back pain, and musculoskeletal disorders, but also disorders such as inflammation, dizziness, headache, anxiety, and neonate/preterm infant disorders.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,051 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,111 | 0,111 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,010 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».