Gordon Tom C, Hope-Bell Josh, Draper-Rodi Jerry, MacMillan Andrew, Miller Danny, Edwards Darren J
School of Psychology, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Department of Public Health, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
BMJ Open. 2025 Feb 7;15(2):e095933. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095933.
To evaluate whether osteopathic and related manual interventions improve adult mental health (depression, anxiety, stress) and psychophysiological measures (eg, heart rate variability, skin conductance).
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Cochrane, and AMED, searched through September 2024.
English-language RCTs with ≥30 participants investigating osteopathic or related manual therapies (eg, myofascial release, high-velocity low-amplitude thrusts) delivered by qualified practitioners, compared with no treatment or sham, and reporting immediate postintervention mental health or psychophysiological outcomes.
Full-text screening, risk-of-bias assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by multiple reviewers using a standardised Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Extraction Form. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. For meta-analyses, Hedges' (with 95% CIs) was calculated from postintervention means and SD. Random-effects models accounted for heterogeneity, and prediction intervals were calculated to assess uncertainty in effect estimates.
20 RCTs were included. Osteopathic interventions reduced depression (Hedges' =-0.47, 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.09, p=0.02) and increased skin conductance (Hedges' =0.67, 95% CI: 0.00 to 1.34, p=0.05). Depression improvements were greater in pain populations (Hedges' =-0.61, 95% CI: -1.06 to -0.17, p=0.01). However, wide prediction intervals and moderate heterogeneity indicate uncertainty in true effect sizes, and limited studies and sample sizes restrict assessment of publication bias.
Osteopathic and related manual therapies may reduce depression and influence certain psychophysiological markers, particularly in pain populations, but uncertainty and heterogeneity limit confidence. More rigorous, larger, and longitudinal RCTs are needed.
This meta-analysis was not formally registered, though the protocol and search strategy can be found at Open Science Framework, registration identification: https://osf.io/jrtpx/.
评估整骨疗法及相关手法干预是否能改善成人心心理健康(抑郁、焦虑、压力)和心理生理指标(如心率变异性、皮肤电导率)。
对随机对照试验(RCT)进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
截至2024年9月检索的PubMed、MEDLINE(Ovid)、Scopus、Cochrane和AMED。
英文RCT,参与者≥30名,研究由合格从业者实施的整骨疗法或相关手法治疗(如肌筋膜松解术、高速低幅推力法),与未治疗或假治疗进行比较,并报告干预后即刻的心理健康或心理生理结果。
由多名评审员使用标准化的乔安娜·布里格斯研究所(JBI)提取表独立进行全文筛选、偏倚风险评估和数据提取。使用JBI批判性评价清单评估偏倚风险。对于荟萃分析,根据干预后的均值和标准差计算Hedges' (95%置信区间)。随机效应模型考虑了异质性,并计算预测区间以评估效应估计的不确定性。
纳入20项RCT。整骨疗法可减轻抑郁(Hedges' = -0.47,95%置信区间:-0.86至-0.09,p = 0.02)并增加皮肤电导率(Hedges' = 0.67,95%置信区间:0.00至1.34,p = 0.05)。在疼痛人群中抑郁改善更为明显(Hedges' = -0.61,95%置信区间:-1.06至-0.17,p = 0.01)。然而,较宽的预测区间和中等程度的异质性表明真实效应大小存在不确定性,且研究和样本量有限限制了对发表偏倚的评估。
整骨疗法及相关手法治疗可能减轻抑郁并影响某些心理生理指标,尤其是在疼痛人群中,但不确定性和异质性限制了可信度。需要更严格、更大规模和纵向的RCT。
本荟萃分析未进行正式注册,但其方案和检索策略可在开放科学框架中找到,注册识别号:https://osf.io/jrtpx/ 。