Cited by 19Complementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation

Pediatric Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine: A Scoping Review

DeMarsh, Samantha, Huntzinger, Anneliese, Gehred, Alison, Stanek, Joseph R., Kemper, Kathi J., Belsky, Jennifer A.·2021·Pediatrics

Abstract

Context A common reproach precluding the use of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) in pediatrics is a lack of evidence regarding its safety, feasibility, and effectiveness. Objective We conducted a systematic, scoping review of pediatric osteopathic medicine to identify gaps in the literature and make recommendations for future research. Data sources We searched 10 databases using 6 key words and medical subject heading terms for any primary articles reporting OMM use in children published from database inception until initiation of the study. Study selection Articles were selected if they reported primary data on OMM conducted in the United States on patient(s) 0 to 18 years old. Data extraction Baseline study characteristics were collected from each article and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system was used to critically appraise each study. Results Database search yielded 315 unique articles with 30 studies fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 13 reported the data required to demonstrate statistically significant results, and no significant adverse events were reported. The majority of studies were graded as providing weak clinical evidence because of significant methodologic flaws and biases. Limitations The review was limited to US-based studies and reports. Minimal discrepancies between reviewers were resolved via an objective third reviewer. Conclusions There is little strong, scientific, evidence-based l…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2020-016162

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • A recent scoping review used more restrictive inclusion criteria, considering only studies performed in the USA where OMT is practiced by osteopathic physicians.

    “According to our decision, a recent scoping review used more restrictive inclusion criteria, considering only studies performed in the USA where OMT is practiced by osteopathic physicians.47”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeMarsh, S., Huntzinger, A., Gehred, A., Stanek, J. R., Kemper, K. J., & Belsky, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Pediatric Residency and
  • Nationwide Children's Hospital (US)
  • Department of Hematology and Oncology and
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Riley Hospital for Children (US)
Corresponding author
DeMarsh, Samantha
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2021-02-01
Volume
147
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W3125895703
Cited by
19
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Keywords
osteopathic manipulative medicine, children, evidence gaps, safety, feasibility, efficacy, research recommendations, methodological quality
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Osteopathic Medicine, Pediatrics, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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