Osteopathic research: elephants, enigmas, and evidence.

John C Licciardone
{"title":"Osteopathic research: elephants, enigmas, and evidence.","authors":"John C Licciardone","doi":"10.1186/1750-4732-1-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The growth and acceptance of osteopathic physicians as conventional medical practitioners in the United States has also raised questions about the distinctive aspects of osteopathic medicine. Although the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and a focus on primary care are most often cited as rationales for the uniqueness of osteopathic medicine, an osteopathic professional identity remains enigmatic.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The fledgling basic osteopathic research efforts of the early and mid-twentieth century have not been sustained and expanded over time. Thus, there is presently a scarcity of basic mechanistic and translational research that can be considered to be uniquely osteopathic. To be sure, there have been advances in osteopathic clinical trials, particularly those involving OMT for low back pain. Meta-analysis of these low back pain trials has provided evidence that: (1) OMT affords greater pain reduction than active or placebo control treatments; (2) the effects of OMT are comparable regardless of whether treatment is provided by fully-licensed osteopathic physicians in the United States or by osteopaths in the United Kingdom; and (3) the effects of OMT increase over time. However, much more clinical research remains to be done. The planning and implementation of a large longitudinal study of the natural history and epidemiology of somatic dysfunction, including an OMT component, represents a much-needed step forward. Osteopathic medicine's use of OMT and its focus on primary care are not mutually exclusive aspects of its uniqueness. The intersection of these fundamental aspects of osteopathic medicine suggests that the profession may successfully adopt a generic strategy of \"focused differentiation\" to attain a competitive advantage in the health care arena. While there are both requisite demands and risks for the osteopathic profession in adopting such a strategy, these are reasonable in relation to the potential rewards to be attained. To help promote an osteopathic identity, \"omtology\" and its derivative terms are recommended in referring to the study of OMT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The osteopathic profession should adopt a coherent strategy for developing and promoting its identity. Failure to do so will likely ensure that osteopathic medicine remains \"stuck in the middle.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":87450,"journal":{"name":"Osteopathic medicine and primary care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1750-4732-1-7","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Osteopathic medicine and primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-4732-1-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Background: The growth and acceptance of osteopathic physicians as conventional medical practitioners in the United States has also raised questions about the distinctive aspects of osteopathic medicine. Although the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and a focus on primary care are most often cited as rationales for the uniqueness of osteopathic medicine, an osteopathic professional identity remains enigmatic.

Discussion: The fledgling basic osteopathic research efforts of the early and mid-twentieth century have not been sustained and expanded over time. Thus, there is presently a scarcity of basic mechanistic and translational research that can be considered to be uniquely osteopathic. To be sure, there have been advances in osteopathic clinical trials, particularly those involving OMT for low back pain. Meta-analysis of these low back pain trials has provided evidence that: (1) OMT affords greater pain reduction than active or placebo control treatments; (2) the effects of OMT are comparable regardless of whether treatment is provided by fully-licensed osteopathic physicians in the United States or by osteopaths in the United Kingdom; and (3) the effects of OMT increase over time. However, much more clinical research remains to be done. The planning and implementation of a large longitudinal study of the natural history and epidemiology of somatic dysfunction, including an OMT component, represents a much-needed step forward. Osteopathic medicine's use of OMT and its focus on primary care are not mutually exclusive aspects of its uniqueness. The intersection of these fundamental aspects of osteopathic medicine suggests that the profession may successfully adopt a generic strategy of "focused differentiation" to attain a competitive advantage in the health care arena. While there are both requisite demands and risks for the osteopathic profession in adopting such a strategy, these are reasonable in relation to the potential rewards to be attained. To help promote an osteopathic identity, "omtology" and its derivative terms are recommended in referring to the study of OMT.

Conclusion: The osteopathic profession should adopt a coherent strategy for developing and promoting its identity. Failure to do so will likely ensure that osteopathic medicine remains "stuck in the middle."

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
整骨疗法研究:大象、谜题和证据。
背景:在美国,整骨医生作为传统医生的成长和接受也引发了人们对整骨医学独特方面的质疑。尽管整骨手法治疗(OMT)的使用和对初级保健的关注最常被认为是整骨医学独特性的理由,但整骨专业身份仍然是个谜。讨论:二十世纪初和中期刚刚起步的骨科基础研究工作并没有随着时间的推移而持续和扩大。因此,目前缺乏可以被认为是独特的整骨疗法的基本机制和转化研究。可以肯定的是,整骨临床试验取得了进展,尤其是涉及OMT治疗腰痛的试验。对这些腰痛试验的荟萃分析提供了证据:(1)OMT比活性或安慰剂对照治疗更能减轻疼痛;(2) OMT的效果是可比较的,无论治疗是由美国完全有执照的整骨医生提供还是由英国的整骨师提供;和(3)OMT的影响随着时间的推移而增加。然而,还有更多的临床研究要做。规划和实施一项关于躯体功能障碍的自然史和流行病学的大型纵向研究,包括OMT部分,代表着向前迈出了急需的一步。骨病医学对OMT的使用及其对初级保健的关注并不是其独特性的相互排斥的方面。整骨医学的这些基本方面的交叉表明,该行业可能会成功地采用“专注差异化”的通用策略,以在医疗保健领域获得竞争优势。虽然整骨专业在采用这种策略时既有必要的需求,也有风险,但就潜在的回报而言,这些都是合理的。为了促进整骨疗法的身份认同,在参考OMT的研究时,建议使用“整骨学”及其衍生术语。结论:整骨疗法行业应采取一致的策略来发展和促进其身份认同。如果不这样做,很可能会确保整骨疗法仍然“夹在中间”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Treatment of specific macrovascular beds in patients with diabetes mellitus. Learning outcomes from a biomedical research course for second year osteopathic medical students. Efficacy of osteopathic manipulation as an adjunctive treatment for hospitalized patients with pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Osteopathic manipulative treatment for pneumonia. Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care: one journal, two audiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1