Ceballos-Laita Luis, Ernst Edzard, Carrasco-Uribarren Andoni, Cabanillas-Barea Sara, Esteban-Pérez Jaime, Jiménez-Del-Barrio Sandra
Department of Surgery, Ophthalmology and Physiotherapy, University of Valladolid, 42004 Soria, Spain.
Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4SB, UK.
Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Mar 18;12(6):679. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12060679.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of craniosacral therapy (CST) in the management of any conditions.
Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases in August 2023, and extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness of CST. The PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool were used to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies. The certainty of the evidence of each outcome variable was determined using GRADEpro. Quantitative synthesis was carried out with RevMan 5.4 software using random effect models.
Fifteen RCTs were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that CST produces no statistically significant or clinically relevant changes in pain and/or disability/impact in patients with headache disorders, neck pain, low back pain, pelvic girdle pain, or fibromyalgia. For non-musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis showed that CST was not effective for managing infant colic, preterm infants, cerebral palsy, or visual function deficits.
The qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence suggest that CST produces no benefits in any of the musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions assessed. Two RCTs suggested statistically significant benefits of CST in children. However, both studies are seriously flawed, and their findings are thus likely to be false positive.
本研究旨在评估颅骶疗法(CST)在治疗任何病症方面的临床疗效。
两名独立评审员于2023年8月检索了PubMed、物理治疗证据数据库、Cochrane图书馆、科学网和整骨医学数字图书馆数据库,并从评估CST临床疗效的随机对照试验(RCT)中提取数据。使用PEDro量表和Cochrane偏倚风险2工具评估纳入研究中潜在的偏倚风险。使用GRADEpro确定每个结果变量证据的确定性。使用RevMan 5.4软件采用随机效应模型进行定量合成。
定性分析纳入了15项RCT,定量合成纳入了7项。对于肌肉骨骼疾病,定性和定量合成表明,CST在患有头痛疾病、颈部疼痛、下背部疼痛、骨盆带疼痛或纤维肌痛的患者的疼痛和/或残疾/影响方面未产生统计学上显著或临床相关的变化。对于非肌肉骨骼疾病,定性和定量合成表明,CST对治疗婴儿腹绞痛、早产儿、脑瘫或视觉功能缺陷无效。
证据的定性和定量合成表明,CST在评估的任何肌肉骨骼或非肌肉骨骼疾病中均无益处。两项RCT表明CST对儿童有统计学上显著的益处。然而,这两项研究都存在严重缺陷,因此其结果可能为假阳性。