Osteopathic manipulative treatment: A systematic review and critical appraisal of comparative effectiveness and health economics research

Abstract

In recent years, evidence has emerged regarding the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatments (OMT). Despite growing evidence in this field, there is need for appropriate research designs that effectively reflect the person-centred system of care promoted in osteopathy and provide data which can inform policy decisions within the healthcare system. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence from comparative effectiveness and economic evaluation research involving OMT. A database search was conducted using CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, AMED, SCOPUS and OSTMED.DR, from their inception to May 2015. Two separate searches were undertaken to identify original research articles encompassing the economic evaluation and comparative effectiveness of OMT. Identified comparative effectives studies were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and appraised using the Good Reporting of Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) principles. Identified economic studies were assessed with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines. Sixteen studies reporting the findings of comparative effectiveness (n = 9) and economic evaluation (n = 7) research were included. The comparative effectiveness studies reported outcomes for varied health conditions and the majority (n = 6) demonstrated a high risk of bias. The economic evaluations included a range of analyses and considerable differences in the quality of reporting were evident. Despite some positive findings, published comparative effectiveness and health economic studies in OMT are of insufficient quality and quantity to inform policy and practice. High quality, well-designed, research that aligns with international best practice is greatly needed to build a pragmatic evidence base for OMT.

The effects of osteopathic treatment on psychosocial factors in people with persistent pain: A systematic review

“…A systematic review and critical appraisal of the available health economic evidence for osteopathy only resulted in sixteen studies of which the majority demonstrated a high risk of bias. The authors concluded that published comparative health economic studies of osteopathy cannot inform policy and practice due to their inadequate quality and quantity [28]. This is consistent with the recommendations made by the Bevan Commission in Wales regarding prudent healthcare-a concept denoting the need to identify interventions and initiatives that are cost-effective and promoting healthcare that fits the needs and circumstances of the citizens by making most effective use of available resources [29].…”

The Australian Complementary Medicine Workforce: A Profile of 1,306 Practitioners from the PRACI Study

“…39,40 In fact, the degree to which CM practitioners valueadd clinical care has received sporadic interest from researchers at best. 52,56 This study therefore provides a useful direction for future researchers seeking to explore this topic more carefully.…”

Attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice among UK Osteopaths: a national cross-sectional survey

“…Contemporary research has led some authors to question the validity and usefulness of such models [33][34][35]. Certainly, there is insufficient research evidence to support all aspects of osteopathy practice and the need for a broader research agenda has been proposed [36,37]. Although the role of research evidence in osteopathy has been debated, there is agreement that EBP needs to be integrated into the osteopathic approach [23,[38][39][40][41].…”