Pediatric Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine: A Scoping Review
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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”
From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [47]
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565 · see citing works
Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · Cited by 26,092 · see citing works
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x · Cited by 11,385 · see citing works
A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1123 · Cited by 3,078 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews
Bagagiolo, D., Rosa, D., & Borrelli, F. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053468 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- 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