Osteopathic manual treatment in women with endometriosis: A scoping review on clinical symptoms, fertility and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".