Cited by 261Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPregnancy-related medical researchMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Franke, Helge, Franke, Jan-David, Fryer, Gary·2014·BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific back pain is common, disabling, and costly. Therefore, we assessed effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in the management of nonspecific low back pain (LBP) regarding pain and functional status. METHODS: A systematic literature search unrestricted by language was performed in October 2013 in electronic and ongoing trials databases. Searches of reference lists and personal communications identified additional studies. Only randomized clinical trials were included; specific back pain or single treatment techniques studies were excluded. Outcomes were pain and functional status. Studies were independently reviewed using a standardized form. The mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and overall effect size were calculated at 3 months posttreatment. GRADE was used to assess quality of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 307 studies. Thirty-one were evaluated and 16 excluded. Of the 15 studies reviewed, 10 investigated effectiveness of OMT for nonspecific LBP, 3 effect of OMT for LBP in pregnant women, and 2 effect of OMT for LBP in postpartum women. Twelve had a low risk of bias. Moderate-quality evidence suggested OMT had a significant effect on pain relief (MD, -12.91; 95% CI, -20.00 to -5.82) and functional status (SMD, -0.36; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.14) in acute and chronic nonspecific LBP. In chronic nonspecific LBP, moderate-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favour of OMT regarding pain (MD, -14.93; 95% CI, -25.18 to -4.68) and functional status (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.07). For nonspecific LBP in pregnancy, low-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favour of OMT for pain (MD, -23.01; 95% CI, -44.13 to -1.88) and functional status (SMD, -0.80; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.23), whereas moderate-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favour of OMT for pain (MD, -41.85; 95% CI, -49.43 to -34.27) and functional status (SMD, -1.78; 95% CI, -2.21 to -1.35) in nonspecific LBP postpartum. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant effects of OMT were found for reducing pain and improving functional status in patients with acute and chronic nonspecific LBP and for LBP in pregnant and postpartum women at 3 months posttreatment. However, larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with robust comparison groups are recommended.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2474-15-286

Cites

64 of 64 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 [25]

    The Results section, under ‘OMT versus other interventions for acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain,’ reports a meta-analysis of pain involving 10 studies, contrary to the claim that this review’s meta-analysis included fewer than 10 trials. The paper does not report the citing authors’ domain 15 rating; that rating is their own assessment. (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 [25]

    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 the systematic review by Franke and colleagues (2014), GRADE revealed moderate quality of evidence for pain and high quality of evidence for functional status.

    “The GRADE performed by the authors revealed both a moderate quality of evidence for pain and a high quality of evidence for functional status.”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Methods (Data synthesis; page unavailable) confirm that the authors used GRADE to assess each outcome. A Results (Effect of interventions; page unavailable) table row reports MODERATE-quality evidence for a pain comparison, but the retrieved passages do not establish the claimed HIGH-quality rating for functional status. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the systematic review by Franke and colleagues (2014), the authors using the CBRG reported low risk of bias for 13 RCTs and high risk of bias for 2 RCTs.

    “The methodological quality of all RCTs, evaluated by the authors using the RoB from the CBRG,18 reported a low and a high RoB for 13 and 2 RCTs, respectively.”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Methods say the authors used the Cochrane Back Review Group Risk of Bias tool. The Results report 13 studies at low risk and name two at high risk, but also rate Licciardone et al. (2009) at high risk; the Discussion says three of 15 studies had high risk. Thus the claim's count of only two high-risk RCTs does not reflect the paper's full account. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the systematic review by Franke and colleagues (2014), a subanalysis evaluating OMT in CNSLBP patients (six trials, 771 participants) found similar meta-analysis results for effect and heterogeneity.

    “Similar meta-analysis results (effect and heterogeneity) have also been found in a subanalysis evaluating the effectiveness of OMT in CNSLBP patients (six trials, 771 participants).”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [25]

    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

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

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [19]DiGiovanna EL Schiowitz S Dowling DJ An Osteopathic Approach to Diagnosis & Treatment 2005 3 Philadelphia Lippincott William & Wilkins
  2. [42]Heinze G Unpublished D.O. Thesis The Effectiveness of a Holistic Osteopathic Treatment in Subacute Low Back Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial 2006
  3. [46]Adorjàn-Schaumann K Höhrhan G Wille H Wolff A Unpublished D.O. Thesis Osteopathic Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial 1999
  4. [48]Gundermann S Unpublished D.O. Thesis Effectiveness of Osteopathic Treatment in Pregnant Women Suffering From Low Back Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial 2013
  5. [53]Peters R Van Der Linde M Unpublished D.O. Thesis Osteopathic Treatment of Women with Low Back Pain during Pregnancy. A Randomized Controlled Trial 2006
  6. [54]Recknagel C Roá J Unpublished D.O. Thesis Study on the Effectiveness of Osteopathic Treatment for Women with Persistent Post Partum Back Pain. A Randomized Controlled Trial 2007
  7. [55]Schwerla F Rother K Rother D Ruetz M Osteopathic treatment of women with persistent low back/pelvic girdle pain postpartum Vol Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium of Osteopathy 2012 2012 Nantes, France Akademie für Osteopathie
  8. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/286/prepub

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Franke, H., Franke, J.-D., & Fryer, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Siegen (DE)
  • Victoria University (AU)
Corresponding author
Fryer, Gary
Venue
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published
2014-08-30
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
286-286
ISSN
1471-2474 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100515050
Cited by
261
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
A.T. Still University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Myofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
osteopathic manipulative treatment, non-specific low back pain, analgesia, functional status, chronic low back pain, acute low back pain, pregnancy, postpartum women, manual therapy, quality of evidence, GRADE assessment, risk of bias, treatment effect heterogeneity, subgroup analysis
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Postnatal Care, Pregnancy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Manipulation, Osteopathic

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