This preprint reports a meta-analysis examining whether osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) reduces pain from structural musculoskeletal conditions of the spine and peripheral joints. Structural musculoskeletal pain is defined by the authors as pain associated with musculoskeletal conditions affecting spinal and peripheral joint structures and represents a significant contributor to global disability. The study evaluated pain outcomes measured on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
The meta-analysis included three randomized controlled trials identified from openly available datasets. The combined study population comprised 231 participants: 117 allocated to receive OMT and 114 receiving non-OMT comparators or other treatment modalities. The investigators used a random-effects model to pool mean differences in VAS pain scores between OMT and non-OMT groups.
The authors state that all data used were contained in the manuscript and that the original trials were located at the provided DOIs. Ethical oversight statements indicate that the study used only publicly available human data from those source trials and that appropriate participant consent procedures were followed in the original studies.
The pooled estimate from the random-effects model produced a mean difference in VAS pain of -1.80 in favor of OMT, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -7.31 to 3.78. Although the point estimate favored OMT (greater pain reduction compared with non-OMT treatments), this difference did not reach statistical significance based on the reported confidence interval.
Between-study heterogeneity was reported as very high for the initial pooled analysis (I2 = 96%), with a statistically significant heterogeneity test (p < 0.0001). The authors identified one trial as an outlier; removal of that paper reduced heterogeneity to a moderate level (I2 = 54.4%). The manuscript attributes some of the overall heterogeneity to that outlier study but notes that heterogeneity remained appreciable even after sensitivity analysis.
The authors emphasize several key limitations that affect interpretation of the pooled result. First, only three RCTs were available, yielding a relatively small total sample (231 participants) and reducing statistical power. Second, there was substantial heterogeneity between included trials, driven in part by a single outlying study. Third, the scope of structural musculoskeletal conditions represented in the included trials was limited; the authors call for evaluation across a broader set of conditions.
Given these constraints, the authors conclude that current randomized-trial evidence does not prove that OMT reduces structural musculoskeletal pain. They present the non-significant pooled mean difference and highlight that the confidence interval spans clinically important benefit in both directions, limiting definitive conclusions.
The manuscript recommends additional high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and standardized methods to better determine whether OMT has a clinically meaningful effect on pain from structural musculoskeletal conditions. Specifically, the authors advise studies that:
Until more robust evidence is available, the authors note that the efficacy of OMT for structural musculoskeletal pain remains unproven based on the reviewed randomized-trial data.
The authors declare no competing interests. They report that all data used in the present work are contained within the manuscript and that the source trials were publicly available at the referenced DOIs. Ethical statements indicate that the review used only openly available human data from prior studies and that participant consent and institutional approvals for those original studies were addressed by the source investigators. The paper is posted as a preprint and has not undergone peer review; the authors explicitly note that it should not be used to guide clinical practice pending peer review and further research.