The profile of French osteopaths: A cross-sectional survey

Wagner, Agathe; Ménard, Mathieu; Jacquot, Erwann; Marangelli, Gianni; Merdy, Olivier; Clouzeau, Cyril; Tavernier, Paola; Verbeeck, Johan; Vaucher, Paul; Esteves, Jorge E.; Cerritelli, Francesco; van Dun, Patrick LS.

doi:10.1016/j.ijosm.2023.100672

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…International surveys have reported that 23% to 90% of osteopaths use CST. Specifically in Europe, between 70% and 89% of the interviewed osteopaths use CST always or often [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]; and 23% to 46% use it as a first-line treatment [ 10 , 11 ]. The relationship between the craniosacral system and the mentioned diseases has been theoretically based on implausible and unproven anatomical claims and connections [ 12 ], which means that no real relationship has been established, making the use of CST less than plausible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ceballos-Laita,

Ernst,

Carrasco-Uribarren

et al. 2024

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of craniosacral therapy (CST) in the management of any conditions. Methods: Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases in August 2023, and extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness of CST. The PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool were used to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies. The certainty of the evidence of each outcome variable was determined using GRADEpro. Quantitative synthesis was carried out with RevMan 5.4 software using random effect models. Data Synthesis: Fifteen RCTs were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that CST produces no statistically significant or clinically relevant changes in pain and/or disability/impact in patients with headache disorders, neck pain, low back pain, pelvic girdle pain, or fibromyalgia. For non-musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis showed that CST was not effective for managing infant colic, preterm infants, cerebral palsy, or visual function deficits. Conclusions: The qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence suggest that CST produces no benefits in any of the musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions assessed. Two RCTs suggested statistically significant benefits of CST in children. However, both studies are seriously flawed, and their findings are thus likely to be false positive.

show abstract