MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402390435 · doi:10.1016/j.ijosm.2024.100733

Osteopathic manual treatment in women with endometriosis: A scoping review on clinical symptoms, fertility and quality of life

2024· review· en· W4402390435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Magalie De Strooper, Len De Nys, L Theys, Alain Vermeersch, Jörgen Quaghebeur

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of osteopathic medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometriosisFertilityQuality of life (healthcare)Alternative medicineGerontologyPhysical therapyFamily medicineGynecologyNursingEnvironmental healthPathologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Endometriosis presents significant treatment challenges and economic burdens, necessitating the exploration of alternative therapies such as Osteopathic Manual Treatment (OMT) to potentially improve patient outcomes.Objective: This scoping review aimed to systematically map existing research on the intervention effects of OMT's on clinical symptoms, fertility, and quality of life in women with endometriosis, and review the current quality of evidence regarding these outcomes.Design: Databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and others, were searched until July 31, 2024 following PRISMA-ScR guidelines.The methodological quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS).Results: The review included thirteen studies revealing low-to-moderate quality evidence for OMT to increase pregnancy success rates and improve quality of life.There is limited evidence for improvements in clinical symptoms such as dyspareunia, and dysmenorrhea.Small sample sizes, methodological variability, and the lack of control groups in many studies limit the current evidence. Conclusion:The synthesis discovered a body of evidence suggesting OMT's potential to improve a range of symptoms associated with endometriosis.However, the current evidence base has several methodological limitations, including small sample sizes, lack of control groups, and the predominance of observational study designs.These limitations mitigate the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn regarding OMT's efficacy; and highlights the imperative for well-designed randomized controlled trials that can offer more definitive evidence. Implications for practice There is low-to-moderate evidence suggesting OMT may benefit clinical symptoms and quality of life in women with endometriosis. There is low-to-moderate evidence suggesting OMT increases pregnancy success rates in women with endometriosis. Current evidence has limitations such as small sample sizes, varied methodological quality, and inconsistent diagnostic methods, emphasizing the need for more rigorous future research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of osteopathic medicineSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207