Cited by 123Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentPregnancy-related medical research

Effectiveness of osteopathic interventions in chronic non-specific low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Dal Farra, Fulvio, Risio, Roberta Giulia, Vismara, Luca, Bergna, Andrea·2021·Complementary Therapies in Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a frequent cause of disability and it represents a medical, social and economic burden globally. Therefore, we assessed effectiveness of osteopathic interventions in the management of NS-CLBP for pain and functional status. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Findings were reported following the PRISMA statement. Six databases were searched for RCTs. Studies were independently assessed using a standardized form. Each article was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Effect size (ES) were calculated at post-treatment and at 12 weeks' follow up. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence. RESULTS: 10 articles were included. Studies investigated osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT, n = 6), myofascial release (MFR, n = 2), craniosacral treatment (CST, n = 1) and osteopathic visceral manipulation (OVM, n = 1). None of the study was completely judged at low RoB. Osteopathy revealed to be more effective than control interventions in pain reduction (ES: -0.59; 95% CI: -0.81, -0.36; P < 0.00,001) and in improving functional status (ES: -0.42; 95% 95% CI: -0.68, -0.15; P = 0.002). Moderate-quality evidence suggested that MFR is more effective than control treatments in pain reduction (ES: -0.69; 95% CI: -1.05, -0.33; P = 0.0002), even at follow-up (ES: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.09, -0.37; P < 0.0001). Low-quality evidence suggested superiority of OMT in pain reduction (ES: -0.57; 95% CI: -0.90, -0.25; P = 0.001) and in changing functional status (ES: -0.34; 95% CI: -0.65, -0.03; P = 0.001). Very low-quality evidence suggested that MFR is more effective than control interventions in functional improvements (ES: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.25, -0.21; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Results strengthen evidence that osteopathy is effective in pain levels and functional status improvements in NS-CLBP patients. MFR reported better level of evidence for pain reduction if compared to other interventions. Further high-quality RCTs, comparing different osteopathic modalities, are recommended to produce better-quality evidence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102616

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Domain 15 (publication bias assessment) was rated as not applicable for all systematic reviews due to lack of a meta-analysis or inclusion in the meta-analysis of fewer than 10 trials.

    “Finally, domain 15 (publication bias assessment) was rated as not applicable for all the SRs due to lack of a meta-analysis24 30–32 or the inclusion in the meta-analysis of fewer than 10 trials.25–29”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

    The paper’s Studies selection section reports that all 10 included studies entered the quantitative analysis. Its functional-status results likewise say all trials were included in that meta-analysis. Thus, for this cited review, the stated reason of fewer than 10 trials in the meta-analysis conflicts with our copy; the paper does not itself report a domain 15 rating. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Four reviews with 34 RCTs (41 comparators) and 3369 participants assessed the efficacy of OMT on low back pain; taking into account overlapping, there were 22 effective trials with a total of 2053 participants.

    “Four reviews24–27 with 34 RCTs (41 comparators) and 3369 participants assessed the efficacy of OMT on LBP, including acute LBP, chronic LBP (CLBP), LBP with sciatica, CLBP with menopause symptoms, LBP in obese patients, acute non-specific LBP (ANSLBP), chronic non-specific LBP (CNSLBP) and/or LBP and pelvic girdle pain in pregnancy and postpartum (PP). Taking into account overlapping, there were 2”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Dal Farra and colleagues, the authors using the CBN Group reported high risk of bias for all RCTs, with high-risk domains including care provider (100%), patient blinding (50%), outcome assessor blinding (17%), participant allocation (33%), and reporting bias (17%).

    “The methodological quality of the primary studies, evaluated by the authors using the CBN Group,19 reported a high RoB for all RCTs [domains at high RoB (% of RCTs): high RoB for care provider (100%), patient blinding (50%), outcome assessor blinding (17%), participant allocation (33%) and reporting bias (17%)].”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

    Section 3.4 reports risk-of-bias concerns in all 10 included studies, with high risk for personnel blinding in all trials and participant blinding in 50%. But it reports only one of 10 trials at high risk for allocation concealment and outcome reporting, not 33% and 17%; Section 4.3 describes assessor blinding as low or unclear risk, not high risk in 17%. Section 2.6 names a 13-item tool based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, not a CBN Group tool. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Dal Farra and colleagues, a subanalysis including two trials (three comparisons) with 548 participants did not find evidence of OMT efficacy on functional status after long-term treatment (12 weeks follow-up), with low quality of evidence and no heterogeneity.

    “A further subanalysis, including two trials (three comparisons) with 548 participants, did not find evidence of OMT efficacy on functional status after a long-term treatment (12 weeks follow-up). Low quality of evidence and no heterogeneity were reported.”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two of the nine systematic reviews registered a protocol before beginning the study.

    “Two of the nine SRs registered a protocol before beginning the study.27 29”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

    Section 2.1 (Protocol registration; page unavailable) states that this systematic review’s protocol was approved and recorded on PROSPERO, supporting its identification as a review with a registered protocol. It does not state when registration occurred, so the claim that it happened before the study began is not established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dal Farra, F., Risio, R. G., Vismara, L., & Bergna, A.
Affiliations
IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano (IT)
Venue
Complementary Therapies in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
56
Pages
102616
ISSN
0965-2299 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3098637714
Cited by
123
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 9
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Complementary Therapies in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
  • INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
chronic non-specific low back pain, osteopathic manipulative treatment, myofascial release, craniosacral therapy, analgesia, functional status, manual therapy, quality of evidence, risk of bias, follow-up outcomes, disability burden, economic burden, medication adherence, patient satisfaction, patient-centered care
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Manipulation, Osteopathic, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review