Systematic reviews of osteopathic care: protocol for an umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The practice of osteopathy differs around the world. However, the dominant practice is that of manual therapy interventions guided by assessment of the neuromusculoskeletal system. Patient populations treated by osteopaths vary across the lifespan and include groups with more-nuanced care requirements such as those who are pregnant. The volume of evidence for osteopathy care is increasing.Objectives This umbrella review seeks to identify systematic reviews of osteopathic care with the purpose of highlighting current knowledge about the high-level evidence underpinning the profession.Methods The umbrella review will be conducted consistent with the Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review methodology. Articles will be limited to those describing osteopathic care. An initial search did not identify a similar study and nor is one registered. A search of MEDLINE and CINAHL informed the search syntax. A full search will be performed across MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, Osteopathic Research Web, AMED, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Osteopathic Medicine Digital Repository (OSTMED.DR). The reference lists of included articles will be reviewed to identify potentially relevant systematic reviews. Data will be extracted from each systematic review and presented in tabular format.Conclusion The umbrella review will synthesise what is known about osteopathic care as described in systematic reviews. The review will inform stakeholders about the role of osteopathic care in the health system and provide recommendations for future research. The findings will be submitted for peer-review publication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.161 | 0.229 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.108 | 0.026 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".