CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88Gastrointestinal motility and disordersComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesInfant Health and Development

Effectiveness of Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy for Managing Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Open access
Müller, Axel, Franke, Helge, Resch, Karl-Ludwig, Fryer, Gary·2014·Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
DOI 10.7556/jaoa.2014.098
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Context: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common and often lifelong functional gastrointestinal disorder. There is a scarcity of effective management options for IBS. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative therapy (OMTh) for managing the symptoms of IBS. Data Sources: Articles without language or publication-date restriction were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PEDro, OSTMED.DR, and Osteopathic Research Web. Search terms included irritable bowel syndrome, IBS, functional colonic disease, colon irritable, osteopath*, osteopathic manipulation, osteopathic medicine, clinical trial , and randomized clinical trial . Experts in the field of visceral osteopathy were also contacted to identify additional studies. Study Selection: The authors evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of OMTh for IBS in adults in whom IBS was diagnosed using Rome (I-III) criteria. If OMTh was not the sole intervention in the intervention group and if the same additional interventions were not applied to the control group, the study was excluded. Data Extraction: Citation identification, study selection, and data extraction were independently undertaken by 2 reviewers with a data extraction form from the Cochrane Collaboration. A consensus method was used to resolve disagreements concerning the assessment of the methodologic quality of the RCTs that were reviewed. Results: The search identified 10 studies that examined OMTh for patients with IBS; 5 studies (204 patients) met the inclusion criteria. All studies were assessed as having low risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration criteria, although there was heterogeneity in the outcome measures and control interventions. Three studies used visual analog scales for abdominal pain, whereas others used the IBS severity score and the Functional Bowel Disorder Severity Index. A variety of secondary outcomes were used. All studies reported more pronounced short-term improvements with OMTh compared with sham therapy or standard care only. These differences remained statistically significant after variable lengths of follow-up in 3 studies. Conclusion: The present systematic review provides preliminary evidence that OMTh may be beneficial in the treatment of patients with IBS. However, caution is required in the interpretation of these findings because of the limited number of studies available and the small sample sizes.

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 · 10.7556/jaoa.2014.098

Cites

3 of 3 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 Muller and colleagues, no adverse events occurred in the patients from any of the RCTs.

    “No adverse events occurred in the patients from any of the RCTs.”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says that none of the five reviewed studies reported serious or statistically significant adverse events from osteopathic manipulative therapy. That does not establish that no adverse events of any kind occurred among patients in any RCT. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The lack of solid evidence stems from a small sample size, the presence of conflicting results, and high heterogeneity in participants, outcome measures, interventions, and comparison interventions.

    “The lack of solid evidence stems from a small sample size,26 28–32 the presence of conflicting results24 30 31 and a high heterogeneity in participants,25 31 outcomes measures,31 32 interventions25–27 31 and comparison interventions.25–27 32”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Conclusion cautions that the favorable results rest on few studies with small sample sizes. The Discussion reports marked heterogeneity in primary outcome measures and control interventions. The passages do not establish conflicting results or high heterogeneity in participants and treatment interventions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Muller and colleagues, although high heterogeneity in outcome measures and follow-up period was evidenced, the results indicated that OMT was effective in irritable bowel syndrome.

    “Although high heterogeneity (in outcome measures and follow-up period) was evidenced, the results indicated that OMT was effective in IBS.”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [32]

  • The systematic review by Muller and colleagues included five primary studies involving 204 participants and evaluated the efficacy of OMT in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

    “In a SR, Muller and colleagues,32 including five primary studies and involving 204 participants, evaluated the efficacy of OMT in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [32]

  • According to the critical domain established in Shea et al, seven systematic reviews were rated low quality and two were rated critically low quality.

    “According to the critical domain established in Shea et al,12 seven25–29 31 32 and two SRs 24 30 were rated as low and critically low quality, respectively.”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [32]

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: 39

  1. Whitehead WE, Burnett CK, Cook EW III, Taub E. Impact of irritable bowel syndrome on quality of life. Dig Dis Sci. 1996;41(11):2248-2253.
  2. Mertz H, Morgan V, Tanner G, et al. Regional cerebral activation in irritable bowel syndrome and control subjects with painful and nonpainful rectal distention. Gastroenterology. 2000;118(5):842-848.
  3. Mertz HR. Irritable bowel syndrome [review]. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(22):2136-2146.
  4. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010;16(1):30-34. doi:10.5056/jnm.2010.16.1.30. · DOI
  5. Camilleri M, Heading RC, Thompson WG. Clinical perspectives, mechanisms, diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2002;16(8):1407-1430.
  6. Kwon JG, Park KS, Park JH, et al. Guidelines for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome [in Korean]. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2011;57(2):82-99.
  7. Poynard T, Regimbeau C, Benhamou Y. Meta-analysis of smooth muscle relaxants in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001;15(3):355-361.
  8. Salari P, Abdollahi M. Systematic review of modulators of benzodiazepine receptors in irritable bowel syndrome: is there hope? World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(38):4251-4257. doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i38.4251. · DOI
  9. Jackson JL, O'Malley PG, Tomkins G, Balden E, Santoro J, Kroenke K. Treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders with antidepressant medications: a meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2000;108(1):65-72.
  10. Spiller R, Aziz Q, Creed F, et al; Clinical Services Committee of The British Society of Gastroenterology. Guidelines on the irritable bowel syndrome: mechanisms and practical management. Gut. 2007;56(12):1770-1798. doi:10.1136/gut.2007.119446. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Jones MP, Talley NJ, Nuyts G, Dubois D. Lack of objective evidence of efficacy of laxatives in chronic constipation. Dig Dis Sci. 2002;47(10):2222-2230.
  12. Khoshoo V, Armstead C, Landry L. Effect of a laxative with and without tegaserod in adolescents with constipation predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;23(1):191-196.
  13. Talley NJ. Evaluation of drug treatment in irritable bowel syndrome [published correction appears in Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;56(5):584]. Brit J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;56(4):362-369.
  14. Halpert A, Dalton CB, Diamant NE, et al. Clinical response to tricyclic antidepressants in functional bowel disorders is not related to dosage. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(3):664-671. References
  15. Talley NJ, Spiller R. Irritable bowel syndrome: a little understood organic bowel disease? Lancet. 2002;360(9332):555-564.
  16. Choung RS, Locke GR III. Epidemiology of IBS. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2011;40(1):1-10. doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2010.12.006. · DOI
  17. Saito YA, Schoenfeld P, Locke GR III. The epidemiology of irritable bowel syndrome in North America: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(8):1910-1915.
  18. Horwitz BJ, Fisher RS. The irritable bowel syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(24):1846-1850.
  19. Jones J, Boorman J, Cann P, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of the irritable bowel syndrome. Gut. 2000;47(suppl 2):ii1-ii19. doi:10.1136/gut.47.suppl_2.ii1. · DOI
  20. Drossman DA, Richter JE, Thompson WG. Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: Diagnosis, Pathophysiology 37. Brisard V, Guillaume JP, Didier B, et al. Traitement Osteopathique de la Colopathie Fonctionnelle: Etude Prospective, Randomisé en Simple Aveugle, Versus Placebo [thesis]. Paris, France: Collège Ostéopathique Européen; 1998.
  21. Müller A, Salomon J, Stiedl M. Osteopathy as a Promising Short-term Strategy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Randomized Controlled Trial [thesis]. German Academy of Osteopathy; 2002. http://www.osteopathic-research.com/index.php?option=com _ jresearch&view=publication&task=show&id=13302&lang=en. Accessed November 1, 2013.
  22. Mitchell S. An Investigation into the Efficacy of an Osteopathic/ Naturopathic Treatment Regime on the Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome [thesis]. London, England: British College of Osteopathic Medicine; 2002.
  23. Steiner D. The Effect of Visceral Osteopathic Treatment on Irritable Bowel Syndrome [thesis]. London, England: British College of Osteopathic Medicine; 1970.
  24. Scheuchl FG. Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Osteopathy [thesis]. Vienna, Austria: Wiener Schule für Osteopathie; 2011.
  25. Chiesa JC, Pomerantz SC, Shinkle JW, Ciesielski J, Cavalieri TA. Determining the impact of osteopathic manipulative therapy in the management of irritable bowel syndrome [abstract P16]. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2003;103(8):382.
  26. Barral JP, Mercier P. Visceral Manipulation. Seattle, WA: Eastland Press; 1988.
  27. Kuchera WA, Kuchera ML. Osteopathic Principles in Practice. Kirksville, MO: Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine Press; 1992.
  28. Gaynes BN, Drossman DA. The role of psychosocial factors in irritable bowel syndrome. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 1999;13(3):437-452.
  29. Johnson SM, Kurtz ME. Osteopathic manipulative treatment techniques preferred by contemporary osteopathic physicians. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2003;103(5):219-224. © 2014 American Osteopathic Association
  30. Camilleri M, Mayer EA, Drossman DA, et al. Improvement in pain and bowel function in female irritable bowel patients with alosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;13(9):1149-1159. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.1999.00610.x · DOI
  31. Müller-Lissner SA, Fumagalli I, Bardhan KD, et al. Tegaserod, a 5-HT4 receptor partial agonist, relieves symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome patients with abdominal pain, bloating and constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001;15(10):1655-1666. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.01094.x. · DOI
  32. Drossman DA. Review article: an integrated approach to the irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;13(suppl 2):3-14.
  33. DiGiovanna EL, Schiowitz S, Dowling DJ. An Osteopathic Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
  34. Brice C, Mountford R. A study into the efficacy of osteopathic treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Br Osteopath J. 2000;22:23-26.
  35. Florance BM, Frin G, Dainese R, et al. Osteopathy improves the severity of irritable bowel syndrome: a pilot randomized sham-controlled study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24(8):944-949. doi:10.1097/MEG.0b013e3283543eb7. · DOI
  36. Hundscheid H, Pepels M, Engels L, Loffeld R. Treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with osteopathy: results of a randomized controlled pilot study. J Gastrointestin Hepatol. 2007;22(9):1394- 1398.
  37. Attali TV, Bouchoucha M, Enamouzig R. Treatment of refractory irritable bowel syndrome with visceral osteopathy: short-term and long-term results of a randomized trial. J Dig Dis. 2013. doi:10.1111/1751-2980.12098. · DOI
  38. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Updated March 2011. Accessed December 11, 2013.
  39. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M; Editorial Board, Cochrane Back Review Group. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(18):1929-1941. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Müller, A., Franke, H., Resch, K.-L., & Fryer, G.
Affiliations
Deutsches Institut für Gesundheitsforschung gGmbH (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Published
2014-06-01
Volume
114
Issue
6
Pages
470-479
ISSN
2702-3648 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.7556/jaoa.2014.098
OpenAlex
W2046442572
Cited by
88
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Infant Health and Development
Keywords
osteopathic manipulative treatment, irritable bowel syndrome, visceral osteopathy, abdominal pain, functional gastrointestinal disorders, IBS symptom severity, sham treatment, treatment effectiveness
MeSH terms
Humans, Abdominal Pain, Manipulation, Osteopathic, Irritable Bowel Syndrome

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