Efficacy of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on postural control in Parkinsonian patients with Pisa syndrome: A pilot randomized placebo-controlled trial

Treatment of axial postural abnormalities in parkinsonism disorders: A systematic review of pharmacological, rehabilitative and surgical interventions

Axial postural abnormalities (PA) are frequent, highly disabling, and drug-refractory motor complications affecting patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) or atypical parkinsonism. Over the past few years, advances have been reached across diagnosis, assessment, and pathophysiological mechanisms of PA. Nonetheless, their management remains a challenge, and these disturbances are generally overlooked by healthcare professionals, potentially resulting in their worsening and impact on patients' disabilities. From shared consensus-based assessment and diagnostic criteria, PA calls for interdisciplinary management based on the complexity and multifactorial pathogenesis. In this context, we conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the available pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for PA in PD according to the new expert-based classification of axial PA in Parkinsonism. Different multidisciplinary approaches, including dopaminergic therapy adjustment, physiotherapy, botulinum toxin injection, and deep brain stimulation, can improve PA depending on its type and severity. An early, interdisciplinary approach is recommended in PD patients to manage PA.

Meta-epidemiologic review: blinding and sham treatment in clinical trial design for osteopathic manipulative treatment research

Objective

To analyze the consistency of study designs in osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) research, focusing on blinding protocols and the use of sham treatments.

Data Source and Study Selection

PubMed and CINAHL were searched in January 2022. A total of 83 research studies between 2009 and 2021 were selected based on the presence of a double- or single-blind study design and/or sham treatment.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Data regarding the primary outcome measures, blinding design, measures used to determine success of blinding, osteopathic technique used, and sham technique used for each eligible study were extracted and compared among different study designs.

Results

A total of 5968 subjects participated in the 83 trials. The study population mainly consisted of asymptomatic individuals (25%) and chronic back pain patients (19%). Light touch was employed most commonly (49%) as the sham treatment, followed by unrelated sham (20%) and incomplete maneuvers (20%). Most studies blinded the subjects (80%) or the outcome evaluator/data analyzer (71%), while only 20% studies blinded the osteopathic physicians.

Conclusions

Strict double-blinding is achievable for OMT clinical research by blinding the subjects and data collectors/analyzers rather than the osteopaths providing the actual treatment. The use of questionnaires to determine the success of blinding should be considered. Additionally, including OMT-naïve subjects is preferred to enhance blinding success. When designing a sham treatment, careful consideration should be given to blinding the data collector, accounting for the placebo effect, and incorporating an additional no-treatment control group to improve the rigor of the study design.

Effects of manual therapy on body posture: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several clinical trials investigated the effectiveness of MT on body posture, but a systematic review grouping the results of these studies was not found in the literature.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does manual therapy (MT) cause postural changes?

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trials in any population; studies in which the primary intervention was the use of any MT technique; studies that evaluated the immediate, short, medium, or long-term effects of interventions on body posture; and studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals in any year and language. In March 2022, we conducted a search in the PUBMED, Cinahl, Embase, PEDro, and Cochrane Central databases that yielded 6627 articles, of which 38 including 1597 participants were eligible; of these, 35 could be grouped into 12 meta-analyses. The risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale and the certainty in the scientific evidence rated through the GRADE system.

RESULTS

The results allowed us to conclude with moderate certainty in the evidence that, when compared to no intervention or sham, in the short and medium term, MT reduced the forward head posture (14 studies, 584 individuals, 95%CI 0.38, 1.06), reduced thoracic kyphosis (5 studies, 217 individuals, 95%CI 0.37, 0.94), improved lateral pelvic tilt (5 studies, 211 individuals, 95%CI 0.11, 0.67) and pelvic torsion (2 studies, 120 individuals, 95%CI 0.44, 1.19) and increased plantar area (3 studies, 134 individuals, 95%CI 0.04, 0.74). With moderate certainty, there was no significant effect on shoulder protrusion (5 studies, 176 individuals, 95%CI -0.11, 0.61), shoulder alignment in the frontal plane (3 studies, 160 individuals, 95%CI -0.15, 0.52), scoliosis (2 studies, 26 individuals, 95%CI -1.57, 2.19), and pelvic anteversion (5 studies, 233 individuals, 95%CI -0.02, 0.51). With low certainty, MT had no effect on scapular upward rotation (2 studies, 74 individuals, 95%CI -0.76, 2.17). With low to very low certainty, it is possible to conclude that MT was not superior to other interventions in the short or medium term regarding the improvement of forward head posture (5 studies, 170 individuals, 95%CI -1.39, 0.67) and shoulder protrusion (3 studies, 94 individuals, 95%CI -4.04, 0.97).

SIGNIFICANCE

MT can be recommended to improve forward head posture, thoracic kyphosis and pelvic alignment in the short and medium term, but not shoulder posture and scoliosis. MT reduces the height of the plantar arch and this must be taken into account in physical therapy planning. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021244423.