Cited by 71Migraine and Headache StudiesTemporomandibular Joint DisordersMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Osteopathy for primary headache patients: a systematic review

Open access
Cerritelli, Francesco, Lacorte, Eleonora, Ruffini, Nuria, Vanacore, Nicola·2017·Journal of Pain Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy, effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in patients with headache. BACKGROUND: Migraine is one of the most common and disabling medical conditions. It affects more than 15% of the general population, causing high global socioeconomic costs, and the currently available treatment options are inadequate. METHODS: We systematically reviewed all available studies investigating the use of OMT in patients with migraine and other forms of headache. RESULTS: The search of literature produced six studies, five of which were eligible for review. The reviewed papers collectively support the notion that patients with migraine can benefit from OMT. OMT could most likely reduce the number of episodes per month as well as drug use. None of the included studies, however, was classified as low risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The results from this systematic review show a preliminary low level of evidence that OMT is effective in the management of headache. However, studies with more rigorous designs and methodology are needed to strengthen this evidence. Moreover, this review suggests that new manual interventions for the treatment of acute migraine are available and developing.

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 · 10.2147/jpr.s130501

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • In Cerritelli and colleagues, evidence for tension-type headache was reported only when within-group analysis was performed, and intergroup analyses reported conflicting results.

    “Similarly, evidence has been reported for the tension-type headache only when within-group analysis was performed; intergroup analyses reported conflicting results.”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results section (“Outcomes reported”; page not available) reports a significantly lower headache frequency in the OMT group than in the control group in Rolle et al.’s tension-type headache trial. That between-group finding contradicts the claim that evidence was reported only from within-group analyses. The section also reports nonsignificant between-group results for some outcomes in another trial, so the comparative findings were mixed. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The overall traffic light evidence for the outcomes of each condition in Cerritelli and colleagues was assessed to be red.

    “The OTLE for the outcomes of each condition was assessed to be red.”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Discussion says the evidence for osteopathic treatment of primary headache is preliminary and of low methodological quality. It does not report an overall traffic-light evidence (OTLE) assessment, assign a red rating, or assess outcomes for each condition; the paper concerns primary headache. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Cerritelli and colleagues, the RCTs were reported to be at high risk of bias, with high-risk domains including care provider blinding (100%), participant blinding (60%), and allocation concealment (20%).

    “The RCTs were reported by the authors to be at high RoB [domains at high RoB (% of RCTs): care provider blinding (100%), participant blinding (60%) and allocation concealment (20%)].”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results > Allocation section rates one of five trials at high risk of bias for allocation concealment, supporting 20%. Results > Blinding of participants and personnel reports three trials with unblinded therapists and two with no information—not 100% rated high risk for care-provider blinding. It also does not establish that 60% were rated high risk for participant blinding. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The systematic review by Cerritelli and colleagues included five RCTs with 235 participants, evaluating migraine (two RCTs, 147 participants) and tension-type headache (three RCTs, 88 participants).

    “The SR of Cerritelli and colleagues,31 including five RCTs with a total of 235 participants, evaluated two different types of primary headache: migraine (two RCTs, 147 participants) and tension-type headache (three RCTs, 88 participants).”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results describe five included randomized trials involving migraine and tension-type headache. But Results > Sample size and length of study reports 265 participants, not 235; the passages do not establish the claimed 147/88 participant breakdown. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Cerritelli and colleagues, the two RCTs evaluating efficacy in migraine reported positive results in favour of OMT (mainly in pain intensity reduction), but intergroup analysis was performed only in one RCT.

    “Although the two RCTs evaluating efficacy in migraine reported positive results in favour of OMT (mainly in pain intensity reduction), intergroup analysis was performed only in one RCT.”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results > Outcomes reported section (page not provided) describes positive OMT findings in two migraine trials, including improved pain scores, and explicitly compares the treated group with control and sham groups in one trial. It does not say that intergroup analysis was performed in only one of the two trials, so that limitation is not established by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]Higgins JP Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 Oxford The Cochrane Collaboration 2011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cerritelli, F., Lacorte, E., Ruffini, N., & Vanacore, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Chieti-Pescara (IT)
  • Istituto Superiore di Sanità (IT)
Corresponding author
Cerritelli, Francesco
Venue
Journal of Pain Research
Published
2017-03
Volume
Volume 10
Pages
601-611
ISSN
1178-7090 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2600936024
Cited by
70
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
osteopathic manipulative treatment, migraine, primary headache, headache treatment, manual therapy, drug use reduction, treatment efficacy and safety

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