- Joined
- Aug 11, 2004
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 1
I have noticed in several threads comments about the lack of research on OMT. This suggests that the people making these assertions have not been keeping up on their JAOA reading. 
Contrary to these assertions, I have been astonished at the ammount of time devoted to OMM research in the JAOA.
This ammount of research astonished me because I came rather naively into osteopathy thinking that OMM was a long-standing, proven therapy, and that no research was needed. I was quite wrong. The deluge of articles devoted to this topic in the JAOA show that there is a considerable ammount of query into the efficacy of particular OMM techniques.
I was recently surprised, for example, to read an article in the JAOA discussing (to my horror) that OMM actually ******ed the time of recovery for knee surgery. This negative feedback was published in the JAOA...which shows a great deal of professional honesty on behalf of both the journal and the researchers. However, it kind of made me feel a little uncertain of OMM.
At the same time, the JAOA has published numerous articles documenting the efficacy of other techniques and applications. This kind of research is FAR from conluded and clearly a HUGE ammount of research remains to be done. But reading the JAOA has given me a lot of hope in the future of OMM as a treatment modality.
The research in OMM is, however, not restricted to publication in the JAOA. For example, in the New England Journal of Medicine, 431 (1999) there appeared an article titled "A Comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for Pations with Low Back Pain." This particular article showed that the results of the two modalities were nearly identical, with the only difference being that the recipients of OMM required less drug therapy and therefore had less negative side effects associated with the drugs.
So there is a large and constantly growing body of reasearch on OMM, which is both surprising to those of us who took OMM for granted, and encouraging for the future of OMM and osteopathy in genreral.
Contrary to these assertions, I have been astonished at the ammount of time devoted to OMM research in the JAOA. This ammount of research astonished me because I came rather naively into osteopathy thinking that OMM was a long-standing, proven therapy, and that no research was needed. I was quite wrong. The deluge of articles devoted to this topic in the JAOA show that there is a considerable ammount of query into the efficacy of particular OMM techniques.
I was recently surprised, for example, to read an article in the JAOA discussing (to my horror) that OMM actually ******ed the time of recovery for knee surgery. This negative feedback was published in the JAOA...which shows a great deal of professional honesty on behalf of both the journal and the researchers. However, it kind of made me feel a little uncertain of OMM.
At the same time, the JAOA has published numerous articles documenting the efficacy of other techniques and applications. This kind of research is FAR from conluded and clearly a HUGE ammount of research remains to be done. But reading the JAOA has given me a lot of hope in the future of OMM as a treatment modality.
The research in OMM is, however, not restricted to publication in the JAOA. For example, in the New England Journal of Medicine, 431 (1999) there appeared an article titled "A Comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for Pations with Low Back Pain." This particular article showed that the results of the two modalities were nearly identical, with the only difference being that the recipients of OMM required less drug therapy and therefore had less negative side effects associated with the drugs.
So there is a large and constantly growing body of reasearch on OMM, which is both surprising to those of us who took OMM for granted, and encouraging for the future of OMM and osteopathy in genreral.
