Mamud-Meroni Lucas, Tarcaya Germán E, Carrasco-Uribarren Andoni, Rossettini Giacomo, Flores-Cortes Mar, Ceballos-Laita Luis
Department of Kinesiology and Physiotherapy, Flores University, Neuquén Q8300, Argentina.
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat International de Catalunya, 08195 Barcelona, Spain.
Biomedicines. 2025 Feb 6;13(2):392. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines13020392.
The increasing interest in complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) for musculoskeletal care has sparked significant debate, particularly regarding their biological plausibility and clinical effectiveness. This comprehensive review critically examines the use of two of the most widely utilized CAMs-osteopathy and chiropractic care-over the past 25 years, focusing on their biological plausibility, clinical effectiveness, and potential mechanisms of action. Our analysis of current research and clinical studies reveals that osteopathy and chiropractic are based on concepts such as "somatic dysfunction" and "vertebral subluxation", which lack robust empirical validation. While these therapies are often presented as credible treatment options, studies evaluating their effectiveness frequently exhibit serious methodological flaws, providing insufficient empirical support for their recommendation as first-line treatments for musculoskeletal conditions. The effects and mechanisms underlying osteopathy and chiropractic remain poorly understood. However, placebo responses-mediated by the interaction of contextual, psychological, and non-specific factors-appear to play a significant role in observed outcomes. The integration of therapies with limited biological plausibility, whose effects may primarily rely on placebo effects, into healthcare systems raises important ethical dilemmas. This review highlights the need for rigorous adherence to scientific principles and calls for a more comprehensive investigation into biobehavioral, contextual, and psychosocial factors that interact with the specific effects of these interventions. Such efforts are essential to advancing our understanding of CAMs, enhancing clinical decision-making, promoting ethical practices, and guiding future research aimed at improving patient care in musculoskeletal disorders.
对用于肌肉骨骼疾病护理的补充和替代医学(CAMs)的兴趣日益浓厚,引发了激烈的争论,尤其是在其生物学合理性和临床有效性方面。这篇综述批判性地审视了过去25年中两种最广泛使用的补充和替代医学——整骨疗法和脊椎按摩疗法,重点关注它们的生物学合理性、临床有效性以及潜在作用机制。我们对当前研究和临床研究的分析表明,整骨疗法和脊椎按摩疗法基于“躯体功能障碍”和“脊椎半脱位”等概念,而这些概念缺乏有力的实证验证。虽然这些疗法常被视为可靠的治疗选择,但评估其有效性的研究往往存在严重的方法学缺陷,为将其推荐为肌肉骨骼疾病的一线治疗方法提供的实证支持不足。整骨疗法和脊椎按摩疗法的效果及潜在机制仍知之甚少。然而,由情境、心理和非特异性因素相互作用介导的安慰剂反应似乎在观察到的结果中起重要作用。将生物学合理性有限、其效果可能主要依赖安慰剂效应的疗法纳入医疗保健系统会引发重要的伦理困境。这篇综述强调了严格遵循科学原则的必要性,并呼吁对与这些干预措施的特定效果相互作用的生物行为、情境和社会心理因素进行更全面的调查。这些努力对于增进我们对补充和替代医学的理解、改善临床决策、促进道德实践以及指导旨在改善肌肉骨骼疾病患者护理的未来研究至关重要。