Cited by 72Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Osteopathic manipulative treatment: A systematic review and critical appraisal of comparative effectiveness and health economics research

Steel, Amie, Sundberg, Tobias, Reid, Rebecca, Ward, Lesley, Bishop, Felicity L., Leach, Matthew, Cramer, Holger, Wardle, Jon +1 more·2017·Musculoskeletal Science and Practice

Abstract

In recent years, evidence has emerged regarding the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatments (OMT). Despite growing evidence in this field, there is need for appropriate research designs that effectively reflect the person-centred system of care promoted in osteopathy and provide data which can inform policy decisions within the healthcare system. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence from comparative effectiveness and economic evaluation research involving OMT. A database search was conducted using CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, AMED, SCOPUS and OSTMED.DR, from their inception to May 2015. Two separate searches were undertaken to identify original research articles encompassing the economic evaluation and comparative effectiveness of OMT. Identified comparative effectives studies were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and appraised using the Good Reporting of Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) principles. Identified economic studies were assessed with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines. Sixteen studies reporting the findings of comparative effectiveness (n = 9) and economic evaluation (n = 7) research were included. The comparative effectiveness studies reported outcomes for varied health conditions and the majority (n = 6) demonstrated a high risk of bias. The economic evaluations included a range of analyses and considerable differences in the quality of re…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.math.2016.10.067

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 59 · Cited by 72

Authors
Steel, A., Sundberg, T., Reid, R., Ward, L., Bishop, F. L., Leach, M., Cramer, H., Wardle, J., & Adams, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • Endeavour College of Natural Health (AU)
Corresponding author
Steel, Amie
Venue
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
27
Pages
165-175
ISSN
2468-7812 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2544543738
Cited by
72
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2017-08-01)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Musculoskeletal Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
osteopathic manipulative treatment, osteopathy, comparative effectiveness, health economics, economic evaluation, risk of bias, reporting quality, person-centred care, healthcare policy
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economics, Medical, Humans, Treatment Outcome, Manipulation, Osteopathic, Comparative Effectiveness Research

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