Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a frequent cause of disability and it represents a medical, social and economic burden globally. Therefore, we assessed effectiveness of osteopathic interventions in the management of NS-CLBP for pain and functional status. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Findings were reported following the PRISMA statement. Six databases were searched for RCTs. Studies were independently assessed using a standardized form. Each article was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Effect size (ES) were calculated at post-treatment and at 12 weeks' follow up. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence. 10 articles were included. Studies investigated osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT, n = 6), myofascial release (MFR, n = 2), craniosacral treatment (CST, n = 1) and osteopathic visceral manipulation (OVM, n = 1). None of the study was completely judged at low RoB. Osteopathy revealed to be more effective than control interventions in pain reduction (ES: -0.59; 95% CI: -0.81, -0.36; P < 0.00,001) and in improving functional status (ES: -0.42; 95% 95% CI: -0.68, -0.15; P = 0.002). Moderate-quality evidence suggested that MFR is more effective than control treatments in pain reduction (ES: -0.69; 95% CI: -1.05, -0.33; P = 0.0002), even at follow-up (ES: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.09, -0.37; P < 0.0001). Low-quality evidence suggested superiority of OMT in pain reduction (ES: -0.57; 95% CI: -0.90, -0.25; P = 0.001) and in changing functional status (ES: -0.34; 95% CI: -0.65, -0.03; P = 0.001). Very low-quality evidence suggested that MFR is more effective than control interventions in functional improvements (ES: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.25, -0.21; P = 0.006). Results strengthen evidence that osteopathy is effective in pain levels and functional status improvements in NS-CLBP patients. MFR reported better level of evidence for pain reduction if compared to other interventions. Further high-quality RCTs, comparing different osteopathic modalities, are recommended to produce better-quality evidence.

Background: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a patient-centred, whole-body intervention aimed at enhance the person’s self-regulation. OMT interventions are focused on somatic dysfunctions (SD) that can be defined as an altered regulative function associated with inflammatory signs palpable in the body framework in different body regions. The conceptual model that sustains SD, as well as its usefulness for the osteopathic profession, is still being discussed by the osteopathic community. Understanding the role and the application of SD is the aim of this scoping review. Methods: A literature search was carried out through the main biomedical databases: Pubmed (Medline), Cochrane, Central (Cochrane), Embase, PEDro and Scopus. Grey literature was considered via Google Scholar and the Osteopathic Research Web. The review was prepared by referring to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews” (PRISMA-ScR). Results: A total of 37,279 records were identified through database searching and other sources. After the duplicates were removed, 27,023 titles and abstracts were screened. A total of 1495 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. The qualitative synthesis included 280 studies. Conclusions: Treating SD is an important part of osteopathic practice that varies from country to country. SD should be considered as a clinical value that assists in the clinical assessment and guides the decision-making process of osteopathic practitioners. Further studies should be designed to better understand why and how to choose the different assessment and intervention modalities to approach SD and to evaluate new osteopathic models.

Introduction: Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization are interventions used by many healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions. Although there are many reports of adverse events (or undesirable outcomes) following such interventions, there is no common definition for an adverse event or clarity on any severity classification. This impedes advances of patient safety initiatives and practice. This scoping review mapped the evidence of adverse event definitions and classification systems following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization for musculoskeletal conditions in adults.Methods: An electronic search of the following databases was performed from inception to February 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ICL, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Open Grey and Open Theses and Dissertations. Studies including adults (18 to 65 years old) with a musculoskeletal condition receiving spinal or peripheral joint manipulation or mobilization and providing an adverse event definition and/or classification were included. All study designs of peer-reviewed publications were considered. Data from included studies were charted using a standardized data extraction form and synthesised using narrative analysis.Results: From 8248 identified studies, 98 were included in the final synthesis. A direct definition for an adverse event and/or classification system was provided in 69 studies, while 29 provided an indirect definition and/or classification system. The most common descriptors to define an adverse event were causality, symptom severity, onset and duration. Twenty-three studies that provided a classification system described only the end anchors (e.g., mild/minor and/or serious) of the classification while 26 described multiple categories (e.g., moderate, severe).Conclusion: A vast array of terms, definition and classification systems were identified. There is no one common definition or classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization. Findings support the urgent need for consensus on the terms, definition and classification system for adverse events related to these interventions.

Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) is a therapeutic whole-body approach mainly focused on correcting somatic dysfunctions. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically map the literature regarding the documented biological effects observed following OMT. The 2020 JBIRM version and the PRISMA-ScR were followed for the conceptualization and reporting of this review. The protocol was registered on the "Open Science Framework Registry" (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MFAUP). We searched for original articles published on Medline, Embase, and Scopus, from inception to the present. Overall, 10,419 records were identified. After duplicate removal, screening for title and abstract, and specific exclusions with reasons, a total of 146 studies were included. Wide differences were detected among studies in their geographical localization, study design, temporal distribution, participants' condition, OMT protocols, and documented biological effects. Such variety in frequency distribution was properly described through descriptive statistics. Biological modifications that appear to be induced by OMT have been detected in several body systems, but mostly in neurophysiological correlates and musculoskeletal changes. Results suggest a growing interest over the years on this topic, especially in the last two decades. More efforts in research are recommended to highlight whether such changes specifically depend on OMT, and to demonstrate its specific contribution to clinical practice.