Osteopathic empirical research: a bibliometric analysis from 1966 to 2018

Abstract

Background Despite the increasing use of osteopathy, a manipulative complementary and alternative medicine therapy, in the general population, its efficacy continues to be debated. In this era of evidence-based practice, no studies have previously reviewed the scientific literature in the field to identify published knowledge, trends and gaps in empirical research. The aims of this bibliometric analysis are to describe characteristics of articles published on the efficacy of osteopathic interventions and to provide an overall portrait of their impacts in the scientific literature. Methods A bibliometric analysis approach was used. Articles were identified with searches using a combination of relevant MeSH terms and indexing keywords about osteopathy and research designs in MEDLINE and CINAHL databases. The following indicators were extracted: country of primary author, year of publication, journals, impact factor of the journal, number of citations, research design, participants’ age group, system/body part addressed, primary outcome, indexing keywords and types of techniques. Results A total of 389 articles met the inclusion criteria. The number of empirical studies doubled every 5 years, with the United States, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom being the most productive countries. Twenty-three articles were cited over 100 times. Articles were published in 103 different indexed journals, but more than half (53.7%) of articles were published in one of three osteopathy-focused readership journals. Randomized control trials (n = 145; 37.3%) and case reports (n = 142; 36.5%) were the most common research designs. A total of 187 (48.1%) studies examined the effects of osteopathic interventions using a combination of techniques that belonged to two or all of the classic fields of osteopathic interventions (musculoskeletal, cranial, and visceral). Conclusion The number of osteopathy empirical studies increased significantly from 1980 to 2014. The productivity appears to be very much in sync with practice development and innovations; however, the articles were mainly published in osteopathic journals targeting a limited, disciplinary-focused readership.

International Overview of Somatic Dysfunction Assessment and Treatment in Osteopathic Research: A Scoping Review

“…According to recent reviews [ 6 , 9 , 53 , 56 ] a large amount of heterogeneity emerged from osteopathic research, particularly concerning treatment modalities. As previously discussed, authors of the included studies considered various protocols in terms of manipulative techniques, period of treatments, frequency and intensity of sessions and, lastly, adopted rationale toward SD.…”

“…In many European countries, efforts are being made to have osteopathy confirmed as a healthcare profession by identifying distinctive osteopathic competencies and producing evidence. As recently reported in a bibliometric analysis, osteopathic research has increased rapidly in recent years [ 6 ]. The main advantage for patients undergoing OMT is the effective relief of acute and chronic pain [ 7 , 8 ]; however, patients also report improvement of other non-musculoskeletal complaints [ 9 , 10 ].…”

“…Indeed, cerebral perfusion and heart rate variability changes were recently found in patients with low back pain after OMT [ 17 ]. Osteopaths often use many different techniques in the same session and different regions of the body are targeted by the intervention [ 6 ]. Since OMT techniques can have different effects on neurophysiological activities [ 18 , 19 , 20 ] their choice during treatment is a clinical judgment of the practitioner.…”

Osteopathy and Mental Health: An Embodied, Predictive, and Interoceptive Framework

“…Also, it seems somewhat questionable to develop osteopathic psychiatry due to regulatory differences between countries and the presumed incompetence of osteopaths to manage mental disorders. Hence, it might be best to discuss (1) a psychologically informed osteopathic practice addressing comorbid psychological factors in patients with 2 It is notable that the osteopathic profession did not prioritize research in the past and that currently steps are being taken to build an osteopathic research culture (Beverly, 2021), which is reflected by the recent establishment of research networks (Steel et al, 2020b) and the exponential growth in publication output during the past decades (Morin and Gaboury, 2021). physical disorders and (2) a collaborative treatment approach combining mind-based (psychotherapy) and adjuvant bodybased (osteopathy) approaches in the treatment of mental disorders.…”

“… 2 It is notable that the osteopathic profession did not prioritize research in the past and that currently steps are being taken to build an osteopathic research culture ( Beverly, 2021 ), which is reflected by the recent establishment of research networks ( Steel et al, 2020b ) and the exponential growth in publication output during the past decades ( Morin and Gaboury, 2021 ). …”