Hubbry Logo
OsteopathyOsteopathyMain
Open search
Osteopathy
Community hub
Osteopathy
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Osteopathy
Osteopathy
from Wikipedia

Osteopathy
OMT technique for the treatment of impotence in the 1898 Osteopathy Complete manual
Alternative therapy
MeSHD026301
ICD-10-PCS7
ICD-9-CM93.6

Osteopathy is a pseudoscientific[1] system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.[2] In most countries, practitioners of osteopathy are not medically trained and are referred to as osteopaths.[3][4][5] It is distinct from osteopathic medicine, which is a branch of the medical profession in the United States.

Osteopathic manipulation is the core set of techniques in osteopathy.[6] Parts of osteopathy, such as craniosacral therapy, have been described by Quackwatch as having no therapeutic value and have been labeled by them as pseudoscience and quackery.[7][8] The techniques are based on an ideology created by Andrew Taylor Still (1828–1917) which posits the existence of a "myofascial continuity"—a tissue layer that "links every part of the body with every other part". Osteopaths attempt to diagnose and treat what was originally called "the osteopathic lesion", but which is now named "somatic dysfunction",[6] by manipulating a person's bones and muscles. Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) techniques are most commonly used to treat back pain and other musculoskeletal issues.[6][non-primary source needed][9]

Osteopathic manipulation is still included in the curricula of osteopathic physicians or Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) training in the US. The Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree, however, became a medical degree and is no longer a degree of non-medical osteopathy.

History

[edit]
Monochrome photograph of Andrew Taylor Still in 1914
Andrew Taylor Still in 1914

The practice of osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone' and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') began in the United States in 1874. The profession was founded by Andrew Taylor Still, a 19th-century American physician (MD), Civil War surgeon, and Kansas territorial and state legislator.[10][11][12][13] He lived near Baldwin City, Kansas, during the American Civil War and it was there that he founded the practice of osteopathy.[14] Still claimed that human illness was rooted in problems with the musculoskeletal system, and that osteopathic manipulations could solve these problems by harnessing the body's own self-repairing potential.[15] Still's patients were forbidden from treatment by conventional medicine, as well as from other practices such as drinking alcohol.[6] These practices derive from the belief, common in the early 19th century among proponents of alternative medicine, that the body's natural state tends toward health and inherently contains the capacity to battle any illness.[16] This was opposed to orthodox practitioners, who held that intervention by a physician was necessary to restore health in the patient. Still established the basis for osteopathy, and the division between alternative medicine and traditional medicine had already been a major conflict for decades.[17]

The foundations of this divergence may be traced back to the mid-18th century when advances in physiology began to localize the causes and nature of diseases to specific organs and tissues. Doctors began shifting their focus from the patient to the internal state of the body, resulting in an issue labeled as the problem of the "vanishing patient".[18] A stronger movement towards experimental and scientific medicine was then developed. In the perspective of the DO physicians, the sympathy and holism that were integral to medicine in the past were left behind. Heroic medicine became the convention for treating patients, with aggressive practices like bloodletting and prescribing chemicals such as mercury, becoming the forefront in therapeutics.[19] Alternative medicine had its beginnings in the early 19th century, when gentler practices in comparison to heroic medicine began to emerge. As each side sought to defend its practice, a schism began to present itself in the medical marketplace, with both practitioners attempting to discredit the other. The osteopathic physicians—those who are now referred to as DOs—argued that the non-osteopathic physicians had an overly mechanistic approach to treating patients, treated the symptoms of disease instead of the original causes, and were blind to the harm they were causing their patients. Other practitioners had a similar argument, labeling osteopathic medicine as unfounded, passive, and dangerous to a disease-afflicted patient.[20] This was the medical environment that pervaded throughout the 19th century, and the setting Still entered when he began developing his idea of osteopathy.

After experiencing the loss of his wife and three daughters to spinal meningitis and noting that the current orthodox medical system could not save them, Still may have been prompted to shape his reformist attitudes towards conventional medicine.[21] Still set out to reform the orthodox medical scene and establish a practice that did not so readily resort to drugs, purgatives, and harshly invasive therapeutics to treat a person suffering from ailment,[16] similar to the mindset of the irregulars in the early 19th century. Thought to have been influenced by spiritualist figures such as Andrew Jackson Davis and ideas of magnetic and electrical healing, Still began practicing manipulative procedures that intended to restore harmony in the body.[21] Over the course of the next twenty five years, Still attracted support for his medical philosophy that disapproved of orthodox medicine, and shaped his philosophy for osteopathy. Components included the idea that structure and function are interrelated and the importance of each piece of the body in the harmonious function of its whole.

Still sought to establish a new medical school that could produce physicians trained under this philosophy, and be prepared to compete against the orthodox physicians. He established the American School of Osteopathy on 20 May 1892, in Kirksville, Missouri, with twenty-one students in the first class.[22] Still described the foundations of osteopathy in his book "The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy" in 1892.[23] He named his new school of medicine "osteopathy", reasoning that "the bone, osteon, was the starting point from which [he] was to ascertain the cause of pathological conditions".[24] He would eventually claim that he could "shake a child and stop scarlet fever, croup, diphtheria, and cure whooping cough in three days by a wring of its neck."[25]

When the state of Missouri granted the right to award the MD degree,[26] he remained dissatisfied with the limitations of conventional medicine and instead chose to retain the distinction of the DO degree.[27] In the early 20th century, osteopaths across the United States sought to establish law that would legitimize their medical degree to the standard of the modern medic.[28] The processes were arduous, and not without conflict. In some states, it took years for the bills to be passed. Osteopaths were often ridiculed and in some cases arrested,[28] but in each state, osteopaths managed to achieve the legal acknowledgement and action they set out to pursue. In 1898 the American Institute of Osteopathy started the Journal of Osteopathy and by that time four states recognized osteopathy as a profession.[29]

Practice

[edit]
Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) involves palpation and manipulation of bones, muscles, joints, and fasciae.

According to the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is considered to be only one component of osteopathic medicine and may be used alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy, rehabilitation, surgery, patient education, diet, and exercise. OMT techniques are not necessarily unique to osteopathic medicine; other disciplines, such as physical therapy or chiropractic, use similar techniques.[30] Indeed, many DOs do not practice OMT at all, and, over time, DOs in general practice use OMT less and less and instead apply the common medical treatments.[31]

One integral tenet of osteopathy is that problems in the body's anatomy can affect its proper functioning. Another tenet is the body's innate ability to heal itself. Many of osteopathic medicine's manipulative techniques are aimed at reducing or eliminating the impediments to proper structure and function so the self-healing mechanism can assume its role in restoring a person to health.[32] Osteopathic medicine defines a concept of health care that embraces the concept of the unity of the living organism's structure (anatomy) and function (physiology). The AOA states that the four major principles of osteopathic medicine are the following:[33]

  1. The body is an integrated unit of mind, body, and spirit.
  2. The body possesses self-regulatory mechanisms, having the inherent capacity to defend, repair, and remodel itself.
  3. Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated.
  4. Rational therapy is based on consideration of the first three principles.

These principles are not held by Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine to be empirical laws; they serve, rather, as the underpinnings of the osteopathic approach to health and disease.[citation needed]

Muscle energy

[edit]

Muscle energy techniques address somatic dysfunction through stretching and muscle contraction. For example, if a person is unable to fully abduct their arm, the treating physician raises the patient's arm near the end of the patient's range of motion, also called the edge of the restrictive barrier. The patient then tries to lower their arm, while the physician provides resistance. This resistance against the patient's motion allows for isotonic contraction of the patient's muscle. Once the patient relaxes, their range of motion increases slightly. The repetition of alternating cycles of contraction and subsequent relaxation help the treated muscle improve its range of motion.[34] Muscle energy techniques are contraindicated in patients with fractures, crush injuries, joint dislocations, joint instability, severe muscle spasms or strains, severe osteoporosis, severe whiplash injury, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, severe illness, and recent surgery.

Counterstrain

[edit]

Counterstrain is a system of diagnosis and treatment that considers the physical dysfunction to be a continuing, inappropriate strain reflex, which is inhibited during treatment by applying a position of mild strain in the direction exactly opposite to that of the reflex.[35] After a counterstrain point tender to palpation has been diagnosed,[36] the identified tender point is treated by the osteopathic physician who, while monitoring the tender point, positions the patient such that the point is no longer tender to palpation.[37] This position is held for ninety seconds and the patient is subsequently returned to their normal posture.[36] Most often this position of ease is usually achieved by shortening the muscle of interest.[37] Improvement or resolution of the tenderness at the identified counterstrain point is the desired outcome.[36] The use of counterstrain technique is contraindicated in patients with severe osteoporosis, pathology of the vertebral arteries, and in patients who are very ill or cannot voluntarily relax during the procedure.

High-velocity, low-amplitude manipulation

[edit]

High velocity, low amplitude (HVLA) manipulation is a technique which employs a rapid, targeted, therapeutic force of brief duration that travels a short distance within the anatomic range of motion of a joint and engages the restrictive barrier in one or more places of motion to elicit release of restriction.[38] The use of HVLA is contraindicated in patients with Down syndrome due to instability of the atlantoaxial joint which may stem from ligamentous laxity, and in pathologic bone conditions such as fracture, history of a pathologic fracture, osteomyelitis, osteoporosis, and severe cases of rheumatoid arthritis.[39][40] HVLA is also contraindicated in patients with vascular disease such as aneurysms, or disease of the carotid arteries or vertebral arteries.[39] People taking ciprofloxacin or anticoagulants, or who have local metastases should not receive HVLA.[39]

Myofascial release

[edit]

Myofascial release is a form of alternative treatment. The practitioners claim to treat skeletal muscle immobility and pain by relaxing contracted muscles. Palpatory feedback by the practitioner is said to be an integral part to achieving a release of myofascial tissues,[38] accomplished by relaxing contracted muscles, increasing circulation and lymphatic drainage, and stimulating the stretch reflex of muscles and overlying fascia.[41]

Practitioners who perform myofascial release consider the fascia and its corresponding muscle to be the main targets of their procedure, but assert that other tissue may be affected as well, including other connective tissue.[41] Fascia is the soft tissue component of the connective tissue that provides support and protection for most structures within the human body, including muscle. This soft tissue can become restricted due to psychogenic disease, overuse, trauma, infectious agents, or inactivity, often resulting in pain, muscle tension, and corresponding diminished blood flow.[42]

Some osteopaths search for small lumps of tissue, called "Chapman release points" as part of their diagnostic procedure.[43]

Lymphatic pump treatment

[edit]

Lymphatic pump treatment (LPT) is a manual technique intended to encourage lymph flow in a person's lymphatic system.[44] The first modern lymphatic pump technique was developed in 1920, although osteopathic physicians used various forms of lymphatic techniques as early as the late 19th century.[45]

Relative contraindications for the use of lymphatic pump treatments include fractures, abscesses or localized infections, and severe bacterial infections with body temperature elevated higher than 102 °F (39 °C).[46]

Effectiveness

[edit]

A 2005 Cochrane review of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in asthma treatment concluded that there was insufficient evidence that OMT can be used to treat asthma.[47]

In 2013, a Cochrane review reviewed six randomized controlled trials which investigated the effect of four types of chest physiotherapy (including OMT) as adjunctive treatments for pneumonia in adults and concluded that "based on current limited evidence, chest physiotherapy might not be recommended as routine additional treatment for pneumonia in adults." Techniques investigated in the study included paraspinal inhibition, rib raising, and myofascial release. The review found that OMT did not reduce mortality and did not increase cure rate, but that OMT slightly reduced the duration of hospital stay and antibiotic use.[48] A 2013 systematic review of the use of OMT for treating pediatric conditions concluded that its effectiveness was unproven.[49]

In 2014, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials found moderate-quality evidence that OMT reduces pain and improves functional status in acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain.[50] The same analysis also found moderate-quality evidence for pain reduction for nonspecific low back pain in postpartum women and low-quality evidence for pain reduction in nonspecific low back pain in pregnant women.[50] A 2013 systematic review found insufficient evidence to rate osteopathic manipulation for chronic nonspecific low back pain.[51] In 2011, a systematic review found no compelling evidence that osteopathic manipulation was effective for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain.[52]

A 2018 systematic review found that there is no evidence for the reliability or specific efficacy of the techniques used in visceral osteopathy.[53]

The New England Journal of Medicine's 4 November 1999 issue concluded that patients with chronic low back pain can be treated effectively with manipulation.[54] The United Kingdom's National Health Service says there is "limited evidence" that osteopathy "may be effective for some types of neck, shoulder or lower limb pain and recovery after hip or knee operations", but that there is no evidence that osteopathy is effective as a treatment for health conditions unrelated to the bones and muscles.[55] Others have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest efficacy for osteopathic style manipulation in treating musculoskeletal pain.[56]

Criticism

[edit]

The American Medical Association listed DOs as "cultists" and deemed MD consultation of DOs unethical from 1923 until 1962.[57] MDs regarded that osteopathic treatments were rooted in "pseudoscientific dogma", and although physicians from both branches of medicine have been able to meet on common ground, tensions between the two continue.[15]

In 1988, Petr Skrabanek classified osteopathy as one of the "paranormal" forms of alternative medicine, commenting that it has a view of disease which had no meaning outside its own closed system.[58]

In a 1995 conference address, the president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Jordan J. Cohen, pinpointed OMT as a defining difference between MDs and DOs; while he saw there was no quarrel in the appropriateness of manipulation for musculoskeletal treatment, the difficulty centered on "applying manipulative therapy to treat other systemic diseases"—at that point, Cohen maintained, "we enter the realm of skepticism on the part of the allopathic world."[15]

In 1998, Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch said that the worth of manipulative therapy had been exaggerated and that the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) was acting unethically by failing to condemn craniosacral therapy. The article attracted a letter from the law firm representing the AOA accusing Barrett of libel and demanding an apology to avert legal action.[15] In response, Barrett made some slight modifications to his text, while maintaining its overall stance; he queried the AOA's reference to "the body's natural tendency toward good health", and challenged them to "provide [him] with adequate scientific evidence showing how this belief has been tested and demonstrated to be true."[15] Barrett has been quoted as saying, "the pseudoscience within osteopathy can't compete with the science".[15]

In 1999, Joel D. Howell noted that osteopathy and medicine as practiced by MDs were becoming increasingly convergent. He suggested that this raised a paradox: "if osteopathy has become the functional equivalent of allopathy, what is the justification for its continued existence? And if there is value in therapy that is uniquely osteopathic – that is, based on osteopathic manipulation or other techniques – why should its use be limited to osteopaths?"[6]

In 2004, the osteopathic physician Bryan E. Bledsoe, a professor of emergency medicine, wrote disparagingly of the "pseudoscience" at the foundation of OMT. In his view, "OMT will and should follow homeopathy, magnetic healing, chiropractic, and other outdated practices into the pages of medical history."[59]

In 2010, Steven Salzberg wrote that OMT was promoted as a special distinguishing element of DO training, but that it amounted to no more than "'extra' training in pseudoscientific practices."[60] It has been suggested that osteopathic physicians may be more likely than MDs to be involved in questionable practices such as orthomolecular therapy and homeopathy.[61][62]

Science writer Harriet Hall stated that DOs trained in the U.S. are Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine and are legally equivalent to MDs. "They must be distinguished from 'osteopaths', members of a less regulated or unregulated profession that is practiced in many countries. Osteopaths get inferior training that can't be compared to that of DOs."[63]

[edit]

The osteopathic profession has evolved into two branches: non-physician manual medicine osteopaths and full-scope medical practice osteopathic physicians. The two groups are so distinct that in practice they function as separate professions. The regulation of non-physician manual medicine osteopaths varies greatly between jurisdictions. In Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland, the UAE and the UK, non-physician manual medicine osteopaths are regulated by statute; their practice of osteopathy requires registration with the relevant regulatory authority. The Osteopathic International Alliance (OIA) publishes a country guide that details registration and practice rights, while the International Osteopathic Association maintains a list of all accredited osteopathic colleges.[64]

Several international and national organizations are involved in osteopathic education and political advocacy. The OIA is an international body that oversees national osteopathic and osteopathic medical associations, statutory regulators, and universities or medical schools offering osteopathic and osteopathic medical education.[65]

The following sections describe the legal status of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine in each country listed.

Australia

[edit]

A majority of osteopaths work in private practice, with osteopaths working within aged care, traffic and workers compensation schemes or co-located with medical practitioners. Osteopaths are not considered physicians or medical doctors in Australia, rather as allied health professionals offering private practice care. The majority of private health insurance providers cover treatment performed by osteopaths, as do many government based schemes such as veteran's affairs[66] or workers compensations schemes[67][68] In addition, treatment performed by osteopaths is covered by the public healthcare system in Australia (Medicare)[69] under the Chronic Disease Management plan.

Osteopathy Australia[70] (formerly the Australian Osteopathic Association) is a national organization representing the interests of Australian osteopaths, osteopathy as a profession in Australia, and consumers' right to access osteopathic services. Founded in 1955 in Victoria, the Australian Osteopathic Association became a national body in 1991 and became Osteopathy Australia in 2014.[71] and is a member of the Osteopathic International Alliance.[72]

The Osteopathy Board of Australia[73] is part of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency which is the regulatory body for all recognized health care professions in Australia.[74] The Osteopathic Board of Australia is separate from the Medical Board of Australia which is the governing body that regulates medical practitioners. Osteopaths trained internationally may be eligible for registration in Australia, dependent on their level of training and following relevant competency assessment.[74]

Students training to be an osteopath in Australia must study in an approved program in an accredited university.[75] Current accredited courses are either four or five years in length.[76] To achieve accreditation universities courses must demonstrate the capabilities of graduates.[77] The capabilities are based on the CanMEDS competency framework that was developed by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

A 2018 large scale study, representing a response rate of 49.1% of the profession indicated the average age of the participants was 38.0 years, with 58.1% being female and the majority holding a Bachelor or higher degree qualification for osteopathy. The study also estimated a total of 3.9 million patients consulted osteopaths every year in Australia. Most osteopaths work in referral relationships with a range of other health services, managing patients primarily with musculoskeletal disorders.[78]

Canada

[edit]

In Canada, the titles "osteopath" and "osteopathic physician" are protected in some provinces by the medical regulatory college for physicians and surgeons.[79][80][81] As of 2011, there were approximately 20 U.S.-trained osteopathic physicians, all of which held a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree, practicing in all of Canada.[82] As of 2014, no training programs have been established for osteopathic physicians in Canada.[83]

The non-physician manual practice of osteopathy is practiced in most Canadian provinces.[84] As of 2014, manual osteopathic practice is not a government-regulated health profession in any province,[85] and those interested in pursuing osteopathic studies must register in private osteopathy schools.[86] It is estimated that there are over 1,300 osteopathic manual practitioners in Canada, most of whom practice in Quebec and Ontario.[83] Some sources indicate that there are between 1,000 and 1,200 osteopaths practicing in the province of Quebec, and although this number might seem quite elevated, many osteopathy clinics are adding patients on waiting lists due to a shortage of osteopaths in the province.[86]

Quebec

[edit]

Beginning in 2009, Université Laval in Quebec City was working with the Collège d'études ostéopathiques in Montreal on a project to implement a professional osteopathy program consisting of a bachelor's degree followed by a professional master's degree in osteopathy as manual therapy.[86] However, due to the many doubts concerning the scientific credibility of osteopathy from the university's faculty of medicine, the program developers decided to abandon the project in 2011, after 2+12 years of discussion, planning, and preparation for the program implementation.[86] There was some controversy with the final decision of the university's committee regarding the continuous undergraduate and professional graduate program in osteopathy because the Commission of studies, which is in charge of evaluating new training programs offered by the university, had judged that the program had its place at Université Laval before receiving the unfavourable support decision from the faculty of medicine.[86] Had the program been implemented, Université Laval would have been the first university institution in Quebec to offer a professional program in osteopathy as a manual therapy.[86]

Egypt and the Middle East

[edit]

Hesham Khalil introduced osteopathy in the Middle East at a local physical therapy conference in Cairo, Egypt in 2005 with a lecture titled "The global Osteopathic Concept / Holistic approach in Somatic Dysfunction". Since then he has toured the Middle East to introduce osteopathy in other Middle Eastern and North African countries, including Sudan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait and Oman. In December 2007 the first Workshop on Global osteopathic approach was held at the Nasser Institute Hospital for Research and Treatment, sponsored by the Faculty of Physical Therapy, University of Cairo, Egypt.[87] On 6 August 2010, the Egyptian Osteopathic Society (OsteoEgypt) was founded. OsteoEgypt promotes a two-tier model of osteopathy in Egypt and the Middle East. The event was timed to coincide with the birthday of A.T. Still.[88][89][non-primary source needed]

European Union

[edit]

There is no European regulatory authority for the practice of osteopathy or osteopathic medicine within the European Union; each country has its own rules. The UK's General Osteopathic Council, a regulatory body set up under the country's Osteopaths Act 1993, issued a position paper on European regulation of osteopathy in 2005.[90]

Belgium

[edit]

Since the early 1970s, osteopaths have been practicing in Belgium, during which time several attempts have been made to obtain an official status of health care profession.[citation needed] In 1999, a law was voted (the 'Colla-Law'[91]) providing a legal framework for osteopathy, amongst three other non-conventional medical professions. In 2011, the former Belgian Minister Onkelinx set up the Chambers for Non-Conventional Medicines and the Joint Commission provided for in the "Colla-law" (1999). Their goal was to discuss and reach an agreement between the various medical professions to rule on these practices. In February 2014, only one practice, homeopathy, received its recognition. The others, including osteopathy, remain unresolved.[92]

Finland

[edit]

Osteopathy has been a recognized health profession since 1994 in Finland. It is regulated by law along with chiropractors and naprapaths. These professions require at least a four-year education.[93] Currently there are three osteopathic schools in Finland, one which is public and two private ones.[94]

France

[edit]

Osteopathy is a governmentally recognized profession and has title protection, autorisation d'utiliser le titre d'ostéopathe.[95] The most recent decree regarding osteopathy was enacted in 2014.[96][97][98][99][100][101]

Germany

[edit]

Germany has both osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. There is a difference in the osteopathic education between non-physician osteopaths, physiotherapists, and medical physicians.

Physiotherapists are a recognized health profession and can achieve a degree of "Diploma in Osteopathic Therapy (D.O.T.)". Non-physician osteopaths are not medically licensed. They have an average total of 1200 hours of training, roughly half being in manual therapy and osteopathy, with no medical specialization before they attain their degree. Non-physician osteopaths in Germany officially work under the "Heilpraktiker" law. Heilpraktiker is a separate profession within the health care system. There are many schools of osteopathy in Germany; most are moving toward national recognition although such recognition does not currently exist.[102] In Germany, there are state level rules governing which persons (non-physicians) may call themselves osteopaths.[103]

Portugal

[edit]

Osteopathy is a governmentally recognized health profession and the title of Osteopath is protected by Law (Act 45/2003, of 22 October, and Act 71/2013, of 2 September). Currently there are eight faculties that teach the four-year degree course of osteopathy (BSc Hon in Osteopathy).[104]

India

[edit]

Sri Sri University offers BSc and MSc Osteopathy programmes.[105]

New Zealand

[edit]

The practice of osteopathy is regulated by law, under the terms of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003[106] which came into effect on 18 September 2004. Under the act, it is a legal requirement to be registered with the Osteopathic Council of New Zealand (OCNZ),[107] and to hold an annual practicing certificate issued by them, in order to practice as an osteopath. Each of the fifteen health professions regulated by the HPCA act work within the "Scope of Practice" determined and published by its professional board or council. Osteopaths in New Zealand are not fully licensed physicians. In New Zealand, in addition to the general scope of practice, osteopaths may also hold the Scope of Practice for Osteopaths using western medical acupuncture and related needling techniques.[108]

In New Zealand a course is offered at the Unitec Institute of Technology (Unitec).[109] Australasian courses consist of a bachelor's degree in clinical science (osteopathy) followed by a master's degree. The Unitec double degree programme is the OCNZ prescribed qualification for registration in the scope of practice: Australian qualifications accredited by the Australian and New Zealand Osteopathic Council are also prescribed qualifications.

Osteopaths registered and in good standing with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency – Osteopathy Board of Australian are eligible to register in New Zealand under the mutual recognition system operating between the two countries. Graduates from programs in every other country are required to complete an assessment procedure.[110]

The scope of practice for US-trained osteopathic physicians is unlimited on an exceptions basis. Full licensure to practice medicine is awarded on an exceptions basis following a hearing before the licensing authorities in New Zealand. Both the Medical Council of New Zealand[111] and the OCNZ[112] regulate osteopathic physicians in New Zealand. Currently, the country has no recognized osteopathic medical schools.[113]

United Kingdom

[edit]

The British School of Osteopathy (now the University College of Osteopathy) was the first school of osteopathy in Britain, established in London in 1917 by John Martin Littlejohn, a pupil of A.T. Still, who had been Dean of the Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine. After many years of existing outside the mainstream of health care provision, the osteopathic profession in the United Kingdom was accorded formal recognition by Parliament by the Osteopaths Act 1993.[114] This legislation now provides the profession of osteopathy with the same legal framework of statutory self-regulation as other healthcare professions, such as medicine and dentistry. This Act provides for "protection of title". A person who expressly or implicitly describes themself as an osteopath, osteopathic practitioner, osteopathic physician, osteopathist, osteotherapist, or any kind of osteopath, is guilty of an offence unless registered as an osteopath.

The General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) regulates the practice of osteopathy under the terms of the Act. Under British law, an osteopath must be registered with the GOsC to practice in the United Kingdom.[115] More than 5,300 osteopaths were registered in the UK as of 2021.[116] The General Osteopathic Council has a statutory duty to promote, develop and regulate the profession of osteopathy in the UK. Its duty is to protect the interests of the public by ensuring that all osteopaths maintain high standards of safety, competence and professional conduct throughout their professional lives. In order to be registered with the General Osteopathic Council an osteopath must hold a recognized qualification that meets the standards as set out by law in the GOsC's Standard of Practice.[117]

Osteopathic medicine is regulated by the General Osteopathic Council, (GOsC) under the terms of the Osteopaths Act 1993 and statement from the GMC. Practising osteopaths will usually have a BS or MSc in osteopathy. Accelerated courses leading to accreditation are available for those with a medical degree and physiotherapists.[118] The London College of Osteopathic Medicine[119] teaches osteopathy only to those who are already physicians.

United States

[edit]

An osteopathic physician in the United States is a physician trained in the full scope of medical practice, with a degree of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO).[120][121][122][123] With the increased internationalization of osteopathy, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) recommended in 2010 that the older terms osteopathy and osteopath be reserved for "informal or historical discussions and for referring to previously named entities in the profession and foreign-trained osteopaths", and replaced in the US by osteopathic medicine and osteopathic physician.[124][125] The American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine made a similar recommendation.[126]

Those trained only in manual osteopathic treatment, generally to relieve muscular and skeletal conditions, are referred to as osteopaths,[127] and are not permitted to use the title DO in the United States[citation needed] to avoid confusion with osteopathic physicians.[1]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Osteopathy is a system of founded in 1874 by American physician , who proposed that the body possesses inherent self-healing mechanisms disrupted by somatic dysfunctions in the musculoskeletal system, treatable primarily through hands-on manipulation rather than drugs or surgery. Still, disillusioned with conventional medicine after personal losses including the deaths of three children from spinal , articulated core tenets emphasizing the unity of all body parts, the interdependence of structure and function, and the body's rational treatment via osteopathic principles. He established the first osteopathic school in , in 1892, initially focusing on drugless healing but evolving in the United States into osteopathic medicine, where practitioners earn the (D.O.) degree and function as fully licensed physicians equivalent to M.D.s, incorporating osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) alongside standard medical practices. Internationally, osteopathy remains distinct, typically denoting a profession limited to without prescriptive rights or surgical training, contrasting with the comprehensive scope of U.S. osteopathic medicine. Key characteristics include diagnostic for identifying restrictions in mobility and tissue texture, followed by techniques such as high-velocity thrusts, muscle energy methods, and work aimed at restoring balance. Achievements encompass the establishment of over 40 accredited U.S. colleges granting D.O. degrees, representing about 11% of U.S. physicians, and contributions to holistic patient care emphasizing prevention and the body's interconnected systems. Controversies persist regarding the empirical foundation of osteopathy's broader claims, with systematic reviews showing moderate for OMT's in reducing and improving function in musculoskeletal conditions like chronic nonspecific , yet limited or inconsistent support for applications beyond these, such as in visceral or cranial disorders. For instance, cranial osteopathy demonstrates poor diagnostic reliability and lacks robust of benefit, highlighting tensions between foundational philosophies and rigorous clinical validation. These debates underscore ongoing scrutiny of osteopathy's mechanisms, with causal explanations rooted in biomechanical and neurophysiological effects rather than unsubstantiated vitalistic concepts.

History

Founding and Early Development

Andrew Taylor Still, born on August 6, 1828, in to a Methodist minister and physician father, trained informally in medicine through family influences and frontier practice before formally studying and practicing as a physician in and . Disillusioned with conventional allopathic medicine's reliance on drugs and , which he viewed as often harmful amid high mortality rates, Still experienced personal tragedy when three of his children died from spinal in 1864, prompting him to reject pharmaceutical interventions. On June 22, 1874, in Baldwin, , Still articulated the foundational principles of osteopathy, emphasizing the body's innate self-healing capacity and the role of musculoskeletal manipulation to restore structural integrity and facilitate blood flow, positing that "a natural flow of blood is health" and disruptions cause . Still's early practice of osteopathy involved manual techniques to address somatic dysfunctions, drawing from observations during his Civil War service and frontier experiences where he noted successes in non-drug treatments like bone-setting. From 1874 onward, he promoted osteopathy through itinerant treatments and lectures in and , claiming cures for conditions like headaches and via spinal adjustments, though facing skepticism and legal challenges from established medical authorities who dismissed it as unscientific. By the late 1880s, Still had relocated to , where growing demand for his methods led to informal apprenticeships, but formal instruction remained limited until he established the American School of Osteopathy (now ) on May 10, 1892, with an initial class of 21 students to systematize osteopathic education. This period marked osteopathy's transition from individual innovation to a structured approach, with Still authoring early texts like his autobiography detailing the discovery and rationale, underscoring a holistic view prioritizing prevention and the interdependence of body systems over symptomatic drug treatment. Early adopters, often from rural backgrounds, expanded practice amid debates over efficacy, with Still advocating empirical validation through outcomes rather than anatomical theory alone.

Institutionalization in the United States

In 1892, established the American School of Osteopathy (ASO) in , as the first institution dedicated to training practitioners in osteopathic principles and techniques, marking the formal beginning of osteopathic . The school, now part of , initially emphasized manipulative treatments while incorporating basic sciences, with its inaugural graduating class of 18 students—including five women—completing the program in 1894. This development addressed the need for standardized instruction amid growing interest in Still's methods, transitioning osteopathy from individual practice to a structured profession. The establishment of the American Association for the Advancement of Osteopathy (AAOA), later renamed the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) in 1901, in 1897 further institutionalized the field by promoting professional standards, public health initiatives, and scientific research among osteopathic practitioners. Founded by ASO students and alumni, the AAOA advocated for legislative recognition and educational uniformity, helping to coordinate the profession's growth and defend against legal challenges to osteopathic practice. By 1898, a second osteopathic college opened, signaling early expansion, though the total number of schools remained limited to five by 1960, producing 13,708 physician graduates. Legal recognition accelerated institutionalization, with Missouri enacting the first state law licensing osteopathic practitioners on March 4, 1897, granting them authority to diagnose and treat without surgical privileges initially. Subsequent legislation in other states—reaching 15 by 1901—expanded practice rights, often requiring passage of medical board exams and leading to parity with allopathic physicians in drug prescription and minor by the early . Full equivalence, including major surgical rights, was achieved across all 50 states by the mid-20th century, supported by AOA lobbying and court rulings affirming osteopaths' medical status. Accreditation mechanisms solidified educational rigor, with the AOA assuming oversight of osteopathic colleges in the early 1900s to ensure curriculum alignment with evolving medical standards, including and integration post-1920s. This shift reflected osteopathy's adaptation to empirical demands, as practitioners incorporated allopathic advancements while retaining manipulative therapy, culminating in the AOA's Commission on Osteopathic College (COCA) formalizing standards by the late 20th century. By the , osteopathic institutions had grown to support residency programs via the Osteopathic Medical Internship and Residency Matching Program, embedding DOs within the broader U.S. healthcare system.

Global Expansion and Differentiation

Osteopathy began expanding beyond the United States in the early 20th century, primarily through American-trained practitioners who disseminated Still's principles abroad. J. Martin Littlejohn, a Scottish-born associate of Andrew Taylor Still who had served as dean of the American School of Osteopathy, returned to the United Kingdom in 1917 and founded the British School of Osteopathy (now the University College of Osteopathy), the first osteopathic institution in Europe. This marked the formal introduction of osteopathic education outside North America, with initial focus on manipulative techniques amid resistance from established medical bodies. Subsequent growth occurred via students and missionaries; for instance, by the 1920s, osteopathic practices had reached Australia and New Zealand, where local associations formed in the 1950s. Further proliferation accelerated post-World War II, with schools emerging in (e.g., the first in 1951), , and other nations by the 1970s, often adapting to local regulatory environments. Today, osteopathy is regulated in over 20 countries, with professional bodies like the General Osteopathic Council in the UK overseeing practice since its statutory recognition in 1993. Expansion has been uneven, concentrated in nations and , where it serves an estimated 150,000 practitioners globally as of recent surveys, though training durations vary from 4-6 years post-secondary. A key differentiation emerged between American osteopathic medicine and international osteopathy due to divergent regulatory and educational paths. In the , osteopaths evolved into fully licensed physicians (DOs) by the mid-20th century, incorporating , , and comprehensive medical training after legislative integrations like the AOA-LIC recognition, positioning DOs as equivalent to MDs. Internationally, however, osteopathy remained a non-physician allied health profession focused predominantly on for musculoskeletal conditions, without prescriptive authority or integration into core medical licensure, as barriers from allopathic dominance preserved its original drugless manipulative emphasis. This split reflects Still's foundational manipulation-centric approach persisting abroad, while US adaptations aligned with biomedical standards; consequently, international osteopaths' scope is narrower, akin to physiotherapy, and US DOs retain distinct identity despite shared tenets.

Philosophical Foundations

Core Principles and Tenets

Osteopathy, as conceptualized by its founder in 1874, posits that the body possesses inherent self-healing capabilities and that health disruptions arise from mechanical impediments to physiological processes, which can be addressed through manipulative interventions. The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) has formalized four foundational tenets derived from Still's philosophy, approved as policy by its House of Delegates:
  • The body is a unit; the person is a unit of body, mind, and spirit: This principle emphasizes holistic integration, viewing disruptions in any aspect as potentially affecting overall function.
  • The body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing, and health maintenance: Still asserted that the musculoskeletal system supports innate regulatory mechanisms, obviating the need for drugs in many cases by removing barriers to recovery.
  • Structure and function are reciprocally inter-related: Anatomical alignment influences physiological performance, and vice versa, with somatic dysfunction—misalignments or restrictions—impeding optimal function.
  • Rational treatment is based upon an understanding of the basic principles of body unity, self-regulation, and the interrelationship of structure and function: Therapeutic approaches prioritize restoring structural integrity to facilitate self-correction, informed by these interdependencies.
These tenets underpin osteopathic and manipulation, though empirical validation varies; for instance, while self-healing aligns with general biological repair processes, claims of universal efficacy through manipulation alone lack consistent support beyond specific musculoskeletal conditions. Somatic dysfunction is defined in osteopathic practice as the impaired or altered function of related components within the somatic system, including skeletal, arthrodial, and myofascial structures along with their associated vascular, lymphatic, and neural elements. This concept, central to osteopathic since the late , posits that such impairments arise from biomechanical strains, trauma, or compensatory adaptations, potentially contributing to diminished self-regulatory capacity and overall health disruption through mechanisms like restricted circulation or neural . The term encapsulates both acute and chronic states, with acute presentations often featuring edematous tissue texture and heightened tenderness, while chronic ones exhibit fibrous changes and subtler restrictions. Diagnosis of somatic dysfunction relies primarily on palpatory examination, utilizing the TART criteria: alterations in tissue texture (e.g., , , or temperature variance), asymmetry of anatomic landmarks, restriction of active or passive motion, and tenderness to palpation or loading. At least two of these criteria, ideally three or more, are required for reliable identification, though inter-examiner agreement varies, with studies reporting values ranging from 0.25 to 0.78 depending on the region assessed and practitioner experience. This subjective yet standardized approach distinguishes somatic dysfunction from mere anatomical variants, informing targeted osteopathic manipulative treatment to normalize function. Related concepts include the barrier framework, which delineates motion limits in dysfunctional segments: the physiologic barrier (end of normal active range), restrictive barrier (pathologic endpoint short of anatomic limit due to or joint constraints), and anatomic barrier (maximum bony approximation). Osteopathic theory further links somatic dysfunction to bidirectional reflex arcs, such as viscerosomatic reflexes—where visceral irritation (e.g., from cardiac or renal ) manifests as segmental somatic changes like paraspinal hypertonicity—and somatovisceral reflexes, positing that correcting somatic impairments may alleviate visceral symptoms via neural modulation or improved . These interconnections underpin the osteopathic tenet of the body as a unitary system, though empirical validation remains limited to observational and small-scale studies rather than large randomized trials.

Theoretical Critiques and Empirical Challenges

Osteopathy's foundational principles, such as the interdependence of structure and function and the body's inherent capacity for self-regulation, have been critiqued for lacking empirical grounding and , rendering them more philosophical assertions than testable hypotheses. Critics argue that these tenets, while inspirational to practitioners, overlap substantially with general biomedical understandings of and , failing to provide a distinctive explanatory framework that withstands rigorous scrutiny. Furthermore, adherence to such principles risks promoting dogmatic practices, potentially undermining the profession's scientific credibility by discouraging integration with evidence-based paradigms. The concept of somatic dysfunction—defined as impaired or altered function in the somatic system manifesting as tissue texture changes, asymmetry, restriction of motion, and tenderness ( criteria)—exemplifies theoretical vulnerabilities. Proposed etiologies, including outdated models like Irvin Korr's "facilitated segment" from the mid-20th century, remain speculative, with no high-quality establishing causal links to states or verifiable pathophysiological mechanisms. Diagnostic reliability is notably poor, with inter-examiner agreement often no better than chance in palpation-based assessments, questioning the concept's clinical utility and comparability to chiropractic theory. Such deficiencies suggest somatic dysfunction serves more as a practitioner-centered rationale for intervention than a robust diagnostic entity informed by modern pain science or research. Empirical challenges compound these issues, as systematic evaluations reveal inconsistent support for osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) beyond short-term symptomatic relief in select musculoskeletal conditions. A 2022 overview of reviews found low to moderate evidence for OMT in , but effects were comparable to sham manipulations or other active therapies, with methodological flaws like inadequate blinding prevalent in studies. For broader applications, such as visceral or cranial osteopathy, randomized controlled trials demonstrate no superiority over , with claims of influencing systemic health via biomechanical adjustments lacking substantiation. Even among U.S. osteopathic physicians (DOs), OMT utilization remains low—only 6.2% apply it to over half their patients—indicating internal skepticism or practical limitations in real-world efficacy. These critiques highlight a tension between osteopathy's holistic aspirations and demands for causal realism, where implausible mechanisms (e.g., purported cranial rhythmic impulses defying fused suture anatomy post-adolescence) persist despite contradictory anatomical evidence. Proponents' reliance on low-quality, profession-internal research exacerbates legitimacy concerns, as external validations, including Cochrane analyses, underscore the need for reconceptualization toward mechanism-driven, reproducible outcomes rather than tradition-bound interventions.

Practitioners and Education

Training Requirements for Osteopaths

Training to become an osteopath, as a practitioner distinct from osteopathic physicians, generally requires completion of a specialized degree program aligned with international benchmarks established by the in 2010. These benchmarks outline a Type I training program totaling approximately 4,200 hours, including at least 1,000 hours of supervised clinical practice, covering osteopathic principles, , , , and hands-on manipulative techniques. Programs emphasize both theoretical knowledge and practical skills, with curricula designed to ensure competency in patient assessment, of somatic dysfunction, and application of osteopathic manipulative treatment. In the United Kingdom, regulated by the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC), aspiring osteopaths must complete a full-time bachelor's or integrated master's degree in osteopathy, typically lasting four years or five years part-time, incorporating over 1,000 hours of clinical training. Entry prerequisites include five GCSEs (grades 9-4) in English, mathematics, and sciences, plus two or three A-levels including a science subject. Graduates must register with the GOsC, demonstrating equivalence of training for overseas applicants through assessments of qualifications, experience, and clinical performance. Ongoing professional development requires 90 hours of continuing education every three years, with at least 45 hours involving peer interaction. In Australia, overseen by the Osteopathy Board of Australia, training entails a five-year pathway: a three-year in osteopathic studies or equivalent, followed by a two-year master's in osteopathy or clinical osteopathy. Programs include foundational and extensive clinical placements, with registration mandatory for practice and requiring demonstration of competency via the Australian Osteopathic Accreditation Council for overseas-trained individuals. certification is also required. Internationally, requirements vary by jurisdiction but adhere to WHO or (EN 16686:2015) guidelines where applicable, prioritizing safety, ethics, and . In countries without statutory regulation, such as parts of or , voluntary adherence to these standards through professional associations ensures minimum training thresholds, though licensure may involve additional national assessments.

Distinction from Osteopathic Physicians (DOs)

Osteopathic physicians, designated as Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs), are fully licensed physicians in the United States who complete accredited medical education equivalent to that of Doctors of Medicine (MDs), including four years of osteopathic medical school followed by residency training in any medical specialty, enabling them to diagnose illnesses, prescribe medications, perform surgeries, and practice the full scope of medicine across all 50 states. In addition to conventional medical training, DOs receive 200-300 hours of instruction in osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), a hands-on approach to address somatic dysfunctions, though OMT constitutes only a minor portion of their overall practice. In contrast, osteopaths practicing outside the —predominantly in countries such as the , , and —function as non-physician manual therapists focused on musculoskeletal manipulation, lacking the , licensure, or authority to prescribe drugs, order advanced diagnostics independently, or perform invasive procedures. Their scope is restricted to assessing and treating somatic dysfunctions through osteopathic manipulative techniques, often collaborating with or referring patients to medical doctors for pharmacological or surgical interventions. Training pathways further delineate the professions: DOs require a , four years of rigorous medical coursework integrating with OMT, and postgraduate residencies totaling over 11,000 hours, culminating in eligibility comparable to MDs. Osteopaths, however, undergo 4-5 years of specialized education in osteopathic manual sciences, emphasizing , , and clinical manipulation with 1,000+ hours of hands-on practice, but without comprehensive training in , , or ; for instance, programs span 3-5 years, while Australian standards mandate a minimum of five years at accredited universities. This divergence traces to the early 20th-century evolution of Andrew Taylor Still's osteopathy: in the , legislative reforms granted DOs parity with MDs by the mid-1970s, integrating osteopathy into mainstream , whereas internationally, the discipline retained its original emphasis on non-drug, manipulative interventions amid resistance to medical expansion. The Osteopathic International formally distinguishes "osteopathic medicine" (practiced by DOs with unlimited rights, primarily in the and ) from "osteopathy" (manual practice with delimited scope elsewhere), underscoring regulatory and philosophical separations to prevent public confusion.

Professional Scope and Limitations

Osteopaths, distinct from osteopathic physicians (DOs), primarily assess, diagnose, and treat musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders through manual techniques, including high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation, , soft tissue , and cranial osteopathy, with the aim of addressing somatic dysfunctions that impair structure-function relationships in the body. In regulated countries such as the , , and several European nations, they function as primary contact practitioners for common MSK complaints like and joint restrictions, conducting patient histories, physical examinations via , and developing management plans that may incorporate exercise, postural advice, and lifestyle modifications. The professional scope emphasizes non-invasive interventions to promote self-healing and holistic patient management, but it excludes full-spectrum medical practice; osteopaths lack authority to prescribe pharmaceuticals, perform , or conduct invasive diagnostics such as biopsies. Regulatory bodies mandate referral to physicians for suspected systemic illnesses, red-flag symptoms (e.g., unexplained or neurological deficits), or conditions beyond MSK expertise, ensuring integration within broader healthcare systems. In jurisdictions like the under the General Osteopathic Council, osteopaths must adhere to evidence-informed practice standards, limiting claims to verifiable MSK benefits while prohibiting unqualified endorsements of for non-MSK ailments. Limitations vary by country but consistently prioritize patient safety through competency benchmarks; for example, the outlines core training in MSK-focused manual skills without extending to pharmacological or surgical competencies, and European regulations in 11 countries (as of 2021) prohibit prescribing while restricting certain high-risk techniques, such as unscreened cervical HVLA. In , under the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, osteopaths manage MSK conditions holistically but defer to medical professionals for pharmacological needs or advanced imaging, reflecting a delimited allied health role rather than independent medical authority. These boundaries stem from statutory protections of the "osteopath" title and training minima (typically 4-5 years postgraduate), which prioritize manual proficiency over comprehensive medical licensure. Overstepping, such as independent management of visceral or pediatric non-MSK issues without evidence, risks regulatory sanctions, underscoring the profession's confinement to supportive, manipulative care within interdisciplinary frameworks.

Clinical Practice

Diagnostic Approaches

Osteopathic diagnostic approaches begin with a comprehensive history, including details on symptoms, medical background, factors, and presenting complaints, akin to standard clinical evaluation in other manual therapies. This is followed by a incorporating , postural assessment, and range-of-motion testing to identify potential musculoskeletal impairments. Practitioners then apply osteopathic-specific methods, emphasizing to detect somatic dysfunction, defined as impaired or altered function of the somatic (body framework) system, including skeletal, arthrodial, and myofascial structures, and their associated vascular, lymphatic, and neural elements. Somatic dysfunction is assessed using the TART criteria: Tissue texture abnormalities (e.g., or hypertonicity), Asymmetry of anatomical landmarks, Restriction of motion, and Tenderness or provocation. The structural examination involves static , where the practitioner uses hands to evaluate tissue quality and in a neutral position, and dynamic or motion , assessing mobility during induced movement. These techniques aim to locate areas of restricted segmental motion or fascial strain, often prioritized in the thoracolumbar spine, , or extremities, as these are common sites of dysfunction contributing to broader symptoms. Diagnostic reasoning in osteopathy integrates these findings holistically, considering interconnections between musculoskeletal, visceral, and cranial systems, though empirical support for visceral or cranial diagnostics remains limited. For instance, experienced practitioners may employ or hypothesis-driven testing, drawing parallels to reasoning in physiotherapy or , but with a focus on biomechanical interdependencies. Reliability of these osteopathic tests varies; a of 15 studies found moderate to good intra-examiner reliability ( values often >0.6) for motion and tissue texture assessment, but inter-examiner agreement was consistently lower ( <0.4 in many cases), indicating challenges in standardized replication across practitioners. Critics, including some within osteopathy, argue that somatic dysfunction's diagnostic utility is undermined by its subjective nature and lack of consistent correlation with pathological outcomes, as palpatory findings do not reliably predict treatment response or disease states. Despite this, such assessments guide manipulative interventions in clinical practice, with proponents asserting their value in identifying subtle impairments not evident in conventional imaging or lab tests. Advanced imaging (e.g., X-rays or MRI) or laboratory tests are incorporated when indicated for differential diagnosis, but osteopathic evaluation prioritizes hands-on methods over high-tech diagnostics unless red flags like infection or fracture are suspected.

Key Manipulative Techniques

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) encompasses a range of hands-on techniques aimed at correcting somatic dysfunctions, which are defined as impaired or altered function of related components of the somatic system including skeletal, arthrodial, and myofascial structures, and their related vascular, lymphatic, and neural elements. These techniques are applied by trained osteopaths to improve mobility, reduce pain, and enhance physiological function, primarily targeting musculoskeletal issues. Key methods include high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrusts, muscle energy procedures, counterstrain, and myofascial release, each employing distinct biomechanical principles to address restrictions in joint motion or tissue tension. High-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) involves a rapid, targeted thrust applied to a joint at the end of its passive range of motion to restore normal articulation and proprioceptive feedback. The practitioner positions the patient to engage the restrictive barrier, then delivers a short, high-speed impulse while maintaining control to avoid excessive force, often producing an audible cavitation sound indicative of synovial gas collapse within the joint. This technique is commonly used for spinal and peripheral joint restrictions, with efficacy supported in reducing acute low back pain when combined with standard care, as evidenced by randomized trials showing short-term improvements in pain and function over sham interventions. Prior myofascial release may precede HVLA to relax surrounding tissues and enhance outcomes. Muscle energy technique requires active patient participation, where the individual isometrically contracts specific muscles against a counterforce provided by the practitioner, followed by passive stretching to elongate shortened tissues and normalize muscle tone. Contractions are typically held for 3-5 seconds at 20-30% of maximum effort, repeated in sets to correct positional dysfunctions such as rib or pelvic misalignments. This indirect-direct approach leverages post-isometric relaxation to improve joint mobility and is indicated for conditions like somatic rib dysfunction, with studies demonstrating its utility in restoring respiratory mechanics. Counterstrain, also known as strain-counterstrain, is an indirect technique that involves positioning the body to shorten the vectors of strain at tender points, thereby inhibiting nociceptive reflexes and allowing muscle spindles to reset. The practitioner monitors for a 30% or greater reduction in tenderness before holding the position passively for 90 seconds, after which slow repositioning restores normal alignment. Effective for acute sprains and visceral referred pain, it minimizes patient discomfort and has been integrated into protocols for restoring balance in performing arts-related injuries. Myofascial release targets fascial restrictions through sustained, low-load stretching to elongate viscoelastic tissues, breaking adhesions and improving fluid dynamics within the extracellular matrix. Techniques vary from direct (engaging the barrier) to indirect (following tissue ease), often applied to cervical or thoracic regions to alleviate tension and enhance circulation. Clinical applications include somatic dysfunctions where fascia contributes to pain patterns, with peer-reviewed evidence indicating benefits in mobility restoration when used adjunctively. These methods are selected based on patient presentation, with practitioners trained to integrate them sequentially for optimal somatic correction.

Application to Specific Conditions

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is most commonly applied to musculoskeletal conditions, where it involves techniques such as high-velocity low-amplitude thrusts, muscle energy, and soft tissue manipulation to address somatic dysfunctions believed to contribute to pain and restricted mobility. For chronic low back pain, multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews indicate moderate evidence of short-term pain reduction and functional improvement, comparable to other manual therapies or exercise, with effects persisting up to 3-6 months in some studies involving 8-12 sessions. A 2023 French healthcare society recommendation, based on high-level evidence, endorses OMT as a valid intervention for low back pain and sciatica, though it emphasizes integration with evidence-based guidelines rather than standalone use. In neck pain management, evidence is mixed; a 2024 randomized trial found OMT no more effective than sham manipulation for reducing pain or disability in chronic cases, suggesting placebo or non-specific effects may play a role. However, systematic overviews report moderate-quality evidence for partial pain relief and functional gains in adults with neck-related issues, particularly when combined with standard care, though long-term superiority over comparators remains unproven. For tension-type headaches and cervicogenic headaches, preliminary clinical trials from 2022-2024 show OMT may reduce pain intensity and improve function, with one review of five trials noting benefits akin to other manipulative approaches, but calling for larger RCTs to confirm efficacy beyond placebo. Applications extend to other musculoskeletal issues like ankle sprains and cervical radiculopathy, where high-level evidence supports OMT for symptom relief, per 2023 analyses aligning with physical therapy standards. In pediatric contexts, OMT is used for conditions such as colic or otitis media, but a 2022 update of reviews found insufficient robust evidence, with small trials showing inconsistent outcomes and methodological limitations like lack of blinding. For non-musculoskeletal conditions, such as gastrointestinal distress or respiratory issues, osteopathic claims of visceral manipulation benefits lack strong empirical support; a 2022 overview of systematic reviews concluded limited and inconclusive evidence, with no high-quality RCTs demonstrating causality beyond musculoskeletal referrals. Similarly, applications to chronic non-specific conditions like irritable bowel syndrome yield low-quality data, where any observed improvements are often attributable to concurrent lifestyle advice rather than manipulation alone. Overall, while OMT shows promise for select pain-related musculoskeletal applications, broader therapeutic claims require further rigorous, placebo-controlled trials to establish causal efficacy.

Empirical Evidence

Effectiveness for Musculoskeletal Disorders

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) has been investigated for its efficacy in treating various musculoskeletal disorders, with the strongest evidence pertaining to low back pain and neck pain. Systematic reviews indicate that OMT can provide short-term pain relief and functional improvements for acute and chronic low back pain, often comparable to other manual therapies or standard care. A 2005 systematic review of randomized controlled trials found that OMT significantly reduced low back pain intensity, with effects greater than placebo and persisting for at least three months. Similarly, a Cochrane review on spinal manipulative therapy, which encompasses OMT techniques, concluded that it is as effective as recommended therapies like exercise or analgesics for chronic low back pain, though long-term benefits remain uncertain. However, more recent high-quality trials challenge claims of specific efficacy beyond non-specific effects. A 2021 multicenter randomized clinical trial involving 400 patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain reported no significant differences between OMT and sham manipulation in reducing activity limitations or pain interference after 12 weeks, suggesting benefits may stem from patient expectations or therapeutic touch rather than unique biomechanical interventions. A 1999 randomized trial comparing osteopathic spinal manipulation to standard medical care in subacute low back pain also found equivalent clinical outcomes, with no superiority demonstrated for OMT. For neck pain, evidence is similarly mixed. A systematic review identified moderate-quality evidence that OMT yields clinically relevant short-term pain reduction in chronic nonspecific neck pain. Yet, a 2024 analysis of randomized trials concluded that OMT is not superior to sham treatments for alleviating pain, disability, or improving quality of life in neck or low back pain patients. Across musculoskeletal conditions, OMT appears safe with low adverse event rates, but methodological limitations in many studies—such as small sample sizes, inconsistent blinding, and high risk of bias—undermine definitive conclusions on superiority over placebo or alternative conservative management. Overall, while OMT offers symptomatic relief for some patients with musculoskeletal disorders, its effects are modest and not consistently attributable to specific osteopathic principles.

Evidence for Broader Health Claims

Osteopathic theory extends beyond musculoskeletal conditions to claim therapeutic effects on visceral organs, the immune system, and other systemic functions through manipulative techniques that purportedly restore somatic-visceral interconnections and self-regulatory mechanisms. However, systematic reviews of these broader applications, particularly visceral osteopathy, consistently report insufficient high-quality evidence to substantiate efficacy. A 2018 systematic review of 15 studies on visceral osteopathy found no reliable diagnostic methods, with inter-rater reliability coefficients often below 0.4, and no demonstration of specific therapeutic benefits over placebo or sham interventions for conditions like gastrointestinal disorders or pelvic pain. For gastrointestinal issues such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a 2021 systematic review of five randomized controlled trials indicated preliminary short-term symptom relief from osteopathic manipulative therapy (OMT), but emphasized low methodological quality, small sample sizes (total n=249), and high risk of bias, precluding firm conclusions on causality or generalizability. Similarly, a 2022 meta-analysis of visceral osteopathy for low-back pain and related disabilities across eight trials (n=567) showed no significant improvements in pain scores (standardized mean difference -0.22, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.04) or function compared to controls, attributing any minor effects to non-specific factors like patient expectation rather than visceral-specific mechanisms. Evidence for other non-musculoskeletal claims, including cardiovascular, neurological, or pediatric applications, remains sparse and inconclusive. An umbrella review protocol from 2024 highlights that while osteopathic interventions show moderate evidence for pain reduction in musculoskeletal contexts, broader systemic claims lack robust randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses demonstrating causality, often relying on observational data prone to confounding. A 2022 overview of systematic reviews on OMT safety and efficacy across conditions noted rare serious adverse events but no consistent superiority over sham for non-musculoskeletal outcomes, with effect sizes typically small (Cohen's d < 0.3) and heterogeneity high (I² > 70%). These findings underscore methodological limitations, such as inadequate blinding and short follow-up periods, which undermine causal inferences for osteopathy's purported holistic effects.

Systematic Reviews and Methodological Issues

A 2022 systematic overview of 16 systematic reviews and meta-analyses concluded that osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) demonstrates moderate-quality evidence for reducing pain intensity and improving physical function in adults with musculoskeletal disorders, particularly low back pain, though effects on disability were inconsistent and safety data were limited due to underreporting of adverse events. Similarly, a 2021 systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on osteopathic interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain found improvements in pain levels and functional status, but emphasized the need for larger trials to confirm findings beyond short-term outcomes. However, a 2024 meta-analysis of 13 RCTs assessing OMT for somatic dysfunctions in neck and low back pain reported no superiority over sham interventions for pain, disability, or quality of life, with effect sizes favoring sham in some domains, highlighting potential placebo contributions. For broader applications, systematic reviews yield weaker evidence; a 2025 meta-analysis of RCTs on osteopathic interventions for adult outcomes (depression, anxiety, stress) found preliminary benefits on psychophysiological markers but insufficient high-quality data for firm conclusions, with high heterogeneity across studies. A 2024 meta-analysis on , an osteopathic technique, indicated small reductions in for certain conditions but noted low methodological quality and of in included trials. Overall, while some reviews attribute benefits to biomechanical corrections, causal mechanisms remain undemonstrated beyond nonspecific effects, as higher-quality sham-controlled trials often show minimal added value over or usual care. Methodological challenges in osteopathy research include frequent low-quality RCTs with inadequate blinding, small sample sizes, and inconsistent outcome measures, leading to inflated effect estimates.00121-0/fulltext) A 2024 meta-research study appraising reporting in 60 osteopathic RCTs found only 20% adhered fully to CONSORT guidelines, with deficiencies in randomization details, allocation concealment, and blinding descriptions, potentially introducing performance and detection biases inherent to manual therapies. Sham controls are particularly problematic, as they often fail to mimic OMT's tactile elements convincingly, undermining placebo equivalence and contributing to overestimation of specific effects. Additionally, a 2025 review of RCT trustworthiness in osteopathic manual therapy identified lapses in preregistration, selective reporting, and conflict-of-interest disclosures, exacerbating research waste and limiting generalizability.00121-0/fulltext) These issues, compounded by reliance on short-term follow-ups and heterogeneous interventions, underscore the need for rigorous, large-scale trials to isolate causal efficacy from patient expectations or therapist interactions.

Criticisms and Controversies

Scientific Validity and Pseudoscientific Elements

Osteopathic theory, originating from Andrew Taylor Still's 19th-century assertions, maintains that structural imbalances in the musculoskeletal system cause most diseases by impeding blood flow, nerve function, and self-healing mechanisms, positing manipulative correction as a . These claims lack empirical substantiation for non-musculoskeletal pathologies, as modern attributes illnesses primarily to infectious agents, , and biochemical disruptions rather than mechanical lesions alone. Systematic overviews of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) reveal modest, short-term benefits for select musculoskeletal issues like and ankle sprains, but no superiority over sham interventions or standard care in reducing pain or improving function. Pseudoscientific elements persist in practices such as cranial osteopathy, which alleges detectable micromovements in cranial sutures and cerebrospinal fluid rhythms amenable to manual adjustment for diverse ailments. Peer-reviewed analyses demonstrate no anatomical or physiological basis for these purported rhythms, with diagnostic reliability exhibiting high variability and inter-examiner agreement near chance levels. Similarly, visceral osteopathy, targeting organ mobility to treat systemic conditions, yields no measurable advantages in randomized trials or meta-analyses across musculoskeletal or visceral disorders. These modalities rely on untestable assumptions of holistic interconnectivity, diverging from falsifiable scientific inquiry and echoing vitalistic doctrines critiqued as pseudoscientific within the field. Diagnostic approaches in osteopathy, including for "somatic dysfunction," show inconsistent reproducibility, undermining claims of objective assessment. While proponents cite OMT's safety profile, the endorsement of unproven techniques risks opportunity costs, delaying evidence-based interventions. Recent trustworthiness evaluations of osteopathy trials highlight methodological flaws, including selective reporting and inadequate blinding, further eroding confidence in expansive validity assertions. Professional literature acknowledges historical pseudoscientific undercurrents as barriers to integration with mainstream , urging demarcation of validated from speculative practices.

Overreliance on Manual Therapy

Osteopathic practice centers on the application of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), a hands-on approach aimed at correcting perceived somatic dysfunctions thought to underlie diverse health issues, often positioning it as a primary intervention rather than an adjunct to conventional medicine. This emphasis stems from foundational principles established by Andrew Taylor Still, which posit that structural impairments cause disease and that manipulation restores self-healing mechanisms, yet empirical support remains confined largely to short-term pain relief in select musculoskeletal conditions like acute low back pain, where effects are modest and comparable to sham treatments. Systematic overviews of reviews indicate promising but low-quality evidence for chronic non-specific low back or neck pain, involving over 3,700 participants across dozens of trials, but highlight high heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and critically low methodological ratings per AMSTAR-2 criteria, undermining claims of broad applicability. Critics contend that this doctrinal reliance on OMT fosters pseudoscientific extensions, such as cranial or visceral manipulations, which lack reliable from rigorous trials and fail to outperform placebos in conditions like or primary headaches. For instance, a 2018 found no sound for visceral osteopathy's , while surveys of osteopathic websites reveal widespread promotion of such techniques for unsubstantiated uses, potentially misleading patients about outcomes. Even among U.S. osteopathic physicians (DOs), OMT usage is infrequent—studies from 1995 and 1998 reported that approximately 50% apply it to fewer than 5% of patients—suggesting internal skepticism about its value beyond niche applications, despite professional advocacy exaggerating benefits for systemic health. Such overreliance carries risks of opportunity costs, including delayed access to proven therapies like or for non-responsive conditions, as OMT's inconclusive results for pediatric, neurological, or visceral disorders may prolong ineffective treatments without addressing root causes. While no severe adverse events dominate profiles across reviewed trials, the persistence of low-evidence practices amid flawed —often unblinded or poorly randomized—raises concerns about perpetuating outdated paradigms over evidence-driven alternatives, particularly outside musculoskeletal domains where causal links between manipulation and remain unverified.

Risks, Adverse Events, and Ethical Concerns

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is associated with minor adverse events in 30% to 61% of patients, including local discomfort, , , tiredness, , and , which typically resolve within 24 to 48 hours. In prospective studies tracking over 3,700 OMT sessions, approximately 5% of encounters resulted in adverse events, with 98% classified as mild (e.g., transient pain) and only 1% as severe, involving medically significant pain but no fatalities or life-threatening outcomes. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials report sparse documentation of adverse events, with no severe incidents observed across musculoskeletal, neurological, or pediatric applications in multiple analyses. Serious adverse events, though rare, include potentially leading to , cauda equina syndrome, disc herniation, and vascular accidents, with estimated incidences ranging from 1 in 1 million to 1 in 5.6 million manipulations for cerebrovascular events. Cervical spine manipulation carries elevated risks, particularly for patients with pre-existing unusual neck pain or stiffness, females, or those undergoing rotational techniques, where vascular complications may occur in 1:100,000 to 1:3.8 million cases. Case reports document outcomes such as , , and persistent neurological deficits following manipulation, with some linked to upper cervical interventions. Ethical concerns arise from the promotion of techniques like cranial and visceral manipulation, which lack robust empirical support and have been critiqued as pseudoscientific, potentially eroding patient trust when presented without caveats on evidentiary limitations. processes require disclosure of these risks, yet patients may experience disempowerment or hesitate to question practitioners, complicating autonomous decision-making. Practitioners bear responsibility to avoid misleading claims about unverified benefits, as codes of ethics emphasize realistic expectations to prevent unjustified reliance on over evidence-based alternatives. Delaying conventional care for conditions unresponsive to OMT raises further ethical issues, particularly when historical osteopathic tenets prioritize holistic models over causal mechanisms grounded in .

Regulation and Professional Status

United States

In the United States, doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) are fully licensed physicians authorized to practice the entire scope of medicine and surgery, equivalent to doctors of medicine (MDs). They are regulated at the state level by medical licensing boards, which grant licensure upon verification of graduation from an accredited osteopathic medical college, completion of accredited postgraduate training (typically a minimum of one year, often extending to full residency programs), and passing national licensing examinations such as the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX-USA) or the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). Accreditation of osteopathic medical education is overseen by the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation (COCA), ensuring programs meet standards comparable to those for MD-granting institutions under the (LCME). Since the 2020 merger of osteopathic and allopathic graduate medical education accreditation under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), DOs participate in a unified residency system, further aligning their training pathways with MDs while maintaining the option for osteopathic-specific recognition through the American Osteopathic Association (AOA). As of 2024, there were approximately 157,456 actively practicing DOs, representing about 11% of the total U.S. physician workforce, with continued growth driven by expanding enrollment in osteopathic medical schools. Professional certification in specialties is achieved through AOA-recognized boards or the , allowing DOs to pursue in all medical fields, from to . The AOA serves as the primary professional organization, advocating for the profession and upholding standards, including a code of that emphasizes self-regulation and high practice norms.

European Union and United Kingdom

In the , osteopathy has been subject to statutory since the Osteopaths Act 1993 established the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) as the independent regulator for the profession. The GOsC maintains a public register of qualified osteopaths, enforces standards of , , conduct, and proficiency, and protects the "osteopath," making it illegal for unregistered individuals to use it or practice osteopathy professionally. Practitioners must renew registration annually, complete continuing , and adhere to a , with the GOsC empowered to investigate complaints and impose sanctions including removal from the register. As of 2023, approximately 5,500 osteopaths are registered with the GOsC. Regulation of osteopathy in the occurs at the national level, with no harmonized EU-wide framework, leading to significant variation across member states. As of October 2023, seven EU countries have implemented statutory regulation: (since 2020, protected title via Cyprus Registration Board), (since 2018, protected title under Danish Patient Safety Authority), (since 1994, protected title via Valvira), (since 2002, protected title overseen by Ministry of Health), (since 2018, protected title with restrictions via Conseil Supérieur de Certaines Professions de Santé), (protected title via Council for the Professions Complementary to Medicine), and (since 2003, protected title under Central Administration of the Health System). In these jurisdictions, regulation typically includes requirements for recognized qualifications (often bachelor's or master's degrees aligned with European standards like EN 16686), registration, and scopes of practice that may position osteopaths as first-contact providers, though self-referral rights and integration into systems differ. In the remaining EU member states, osteopathy lacks statutory protection, relying instead on voluntary professional associations or integration under broader allied health frameworks, which can result in unregulated practice and variable training standards. The Forum for Osteopathic Regulation in Europe (FORE), comprising national associations, advocates for wider statutory adoption to enhance patient safety and professional mobility under EU directives on professional qualifications, but progress remains uneven due to national sovereignty over health professions. Efforts to standardize competencies continue through bodies like Osteopathy Europe, yet the absence of uniform regulation complicates cross-border recognition of qualifications.

Other International Contexts

In Australia, osteopathy has been regulated since the 1970s under state legislation, with national statutory regulation established in 2010 through the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, administered by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Osteopathy Board of Australia. This framework requires practitioners to hold accredited qualifications, typically a five-year , maintain professional indemnity insurance, and adhere to standards for recency of practice and continuing . Australia was the first country worldwide to implement full statutory regulation of osteopaths, protecting the title and emphasizing public safety through registration and ethical codes. In , osteopathy is statutorily regulated under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, with the Osteopathic Council of New Zealand serving as the responsible authority to register practitioners, set competence standards, and enforce ethical conduct. Practitioners must complete a four-year full-time training program from an accredited institution and hold current registration to use the protected title "osteopath," aligning osteopathy with other health professions like and under the same legislative oversight. The council accredits education programs and monitors compliance to ensure safe practice. Canada lacks uniform national for manual osteopathy, which remains an unregulated across most provinces, allowing practitioners to operate without mandatory licensing or standardized entry requirements, though voluntary associations like Osteopathy Canada promote national standards for and practice. In contrast, osteopathic physicians trained in the American DO model are regulated equivalently to MDs by provincial medical colleges, granting full prescriptive and surgical rights. Recent provincial initiatives, such as in , have proposed self- for manual osteopaths through bodies like the College of Registered Manual Osteopaths of , but as of 2025, these remain in development without statutory . In , osteopathy is regulated by the Allied Health Professions Council of South Africa (AHPCSA) under the Allied Health Professions Act of 1982, with statutory recognition dating to the 1974 Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Osteopaths, and Herbalists Act, requiring registration for legal practice and protecting the title. Practitioners must possess approved qualifications, such as a in osteopathy, and comply with scopes of practice that include but exclude certain invasive procedures without additional endorsement. The Osteopathic Association of supports professional standards, though enforcement relies on AHPCSA oversight for discipline and public protection. Other countries exhibit varied status; for instance, osteopathy holds statutory regulation in non-EU nations like and , where it integrates into healthcare systems with protected titles and mandatory registration, but remains unregulated or voluntary in much of and , relying on professional associations rather than government mandates. Globally, as of 2020, statutory recognition for osteopathic practice existed in approximately 13 countries beyond the , core, and , often distinguishing manual osteopaths from full-scope osteopathic physicians.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.