Systematic review and meta‐analysis showed that complementary and alternative medicines were not effective for infantile colic

Abstract

Aim Osteopathy and chiropractic techniques are used for babies for different reasons, but it is unclear how effective they are. The aim of this study was to evaluate their effectiveness in reducing crying time and increasing sleeping time in babies with infantile colic. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted on infantile colic studies that used complementary and alternative medicine techniques as interventions. The outcome measures were hours spent crying and/or sleeping. We used the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Osteopathic Medicine Digital Database and Google Scholar databases from inception to 11 November 2022. Results The methodological quality of the randomised control trials ranged from fair to high. We focused on five studies with 422 babies. Complementary treatments failed to decrease the crying time (mean difference −1.08, 95% CI: −2.17 to 0.01, I2 = 92%) and to increase sleeping time (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI: −0.20 to 2.41; I2: 91%), compared with no intervention. The quality of the evidence was rated as very low for both outcome measures. Conclusion Osteopathy and chiropractic treatment failed to reduce the crying time and increase sleeping time in babies with infantile colic, compared with no additional intervention.

Is Craniosacral Therapy Effective? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Most of them concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support CST in any condition. Our findings are thus in accordance with the previously published evidence [ 1 , 15 , 18 , 57 , 60 ]. Our systematic review and meta-analysis is the first that critically evaluates all the currently available evidence on CST in musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.…”

“…Several previous systematic reviews have investigated the effects of CST in different populations [ 1 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Most of them concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support CST in any condition.…”

Issue highlights

“…5 were compared with no intervention. 6 The meta-analysis comprised five studies with a total of 422 babies. The quality of the evidence was rated as very low for both outcome measures.…”

“…A systematic review and meta‐analysis by Cabanillas‐Barea et al explored the use of osteopathy and chiropractic techniques to treat infantile colic. The authors report that they failed to decrease crying time and increase sleeping time in babies with infantile colic when the results were compared with no intervention 6 . The meta‐analysis comprised five studies with a total of 422 babies.…”

Reply to Hestbaek et al. ‘Osteopathy and chiropractic treatment in babies with infantile colic’

“…

We appreciate all the comments made regarding our study 'Systematic review and meta-analysis showed that complementary and alternative medicines were not effective for infantile colic'. 1

…”