Osteopathic manipulative treatment: A systematic review and critical appraisal of comparative effectiveness and health economics research
- PMID: 27852531
- DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2016.10.067
Osteopathic manipulative treatment: A systematic review and critical appraisal of comparative effectiveness and health economics research
Erratum in
-
Corrigendum to "Osteopathic manipulative treatment: A systematic review and critical appraisal of comparative effectiveness and health economics research" [Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 27 165-175].Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017 Aug;30:86. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.02.005. Epub 2017 Mar 7. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017. PMID: 28283320 No abstract available.
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.
Keywords: Comparative effectiveness research; Economic evaluation; Osteopathic manipulative treatment; Osteopathy; Pragmatic research.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Reply to the letter to the editor: 'Systematic review of comparative effectiveness and health economics research relating to osteopathic manipulative treatment'.Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017 Jun;29:e18. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.02.001. Epub 2017 Feb 3. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017. PMID: 28189458 No abstract available.
-
Systematic review of comparative effectiveness and health economics research relating to osteopathic manipulative treatment.Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017 Jun;29:e16-e17. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.01.006. Epub 2017 Jan 20. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017. PMID: 28715303 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
