OMT research

[RDO]

Can someone please tell me where OMT research is being done? Is it being done at Osteo schools? AOA research sites? If there is this research at Osteo schools, it must not be extensive because most of the people there must be busy with the DO program. Also, I'd like to know which Osteo schools are big in OMT research. Thanks.

-RDO

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RDO]

Oh yeah, this has been bugging me too...

Are OMT and OMM the same thing? Thanks.

 

[drusso]

Yes, there is both basic science and clinical research on Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) being conducted at DO schools in departmetns of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM).

Here at UNTHSC/TCOM a new predoctoral research fellowship program is underway and has as its goal training DO's in clinical research. The program is one year in length and includes coursework leading to the MPH degree. There are currently three predoctoral fellows--two DO/MPH and one DO/PhD. It is hoped that eventually the predoctoral research fellowship will be incorporated by other depts such as internal medicine, pediatrics, OB/GYN, etc. Predoctoral fellows oversee various research activities within the department with limited clinical and teaching duties. It is modeled after the Undergraduate Teaching Fellowship programs that most DO schools have, but with a clear RESEARCH emphasis.

DO school with active research in OMM include: TCOM, MSU-COM, New Jersey, NYCOM, KCOM, amd CCOM.



------------------
David Russo, MS3
UNTHSC/TCOM
Research Fellow, Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine

 

[RDO]

Thanks drusso, you've piqued my interest since I've already been accepted at UMDNJ and they never mentioned their OMT research. I'll have to call them. I have a NYCOM interview coming up, so I'll be sure to probe them on the matter.

Also, I found a good website that posts OMT research studies: www.americanwholehealth.com if anyone else is interested.

-RDO

 

[drusso]

In December, a meeting in Washington DC is scheduled with representatives from the AOA, the AAO (American Academy of Osteopathy), AACOM, scientists from NIH and other governmental agencies, along with researchers from the 19 colleges, to explore ways to increase research at DO schools--especially clinical outcomes research in OMM.

It is hoped that the profession can organize a large scale, multi-site, clinical investigation of OMT with funding by outside grant awarding agencies (NIH?). The NEJM article (and other similar outcome studies) have suggested that OMT may offer substantial cost-savings compared to chiropractic and standard medical care for certain musculoskeletal conditions. Interest among third party payors to answering the question, "Are DO's more cost-effective providers of manual medicine?" has been brewing for some time now.

Stay tuned...

------------------
David Russo, MS3
UNTHSC/TCOM
Research Fellow, Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine

 

[RBorhani]

The New England Journal of Medicine -- November 4, 1999 -- Vol. 341, No. 19

latest research on OMT...


A Comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for Patients with Low Back Pain
Gunnar B.J. Andersson, Tracy Lucente, Andrew M. Davis, Robert E. Kappler, James A. Lipton, Sue Leurgans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract
Background. The effect of osteopathic manual therapy (i.e., spinal manipulation) in patients with chronic and subchronic back pain is largely unknown, and its use in such patients is controversial. Nevertheless, manual therapy is a frequently used method of treatment in this group of patients.

Methods. We performed a randomized, controlled trial that involved patients who had had back pain for at least three weeks but less than six months. We screened 1193 patients; 178 were found to be eligible and were randomly assigned to treatment groups; 23 of these patients subsequently dropped out of the study. The patients were treated either with one or more standard medical therapies (72 patients) or with osteopathic manual therapy (83 patients). We used a variety of outcome measures, including scores on the Roland-Morris and Oswestry questionnaires, a visual-analogue pain scale, and measurements of range of motion and straight-leg raising, to assess the results of treatment over a 12-week period.

Results. Patients in both groups improved during the 12 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the primary outcome measures. The osteopathic-treatment group required significantly less medication (analgesics, antiinflammatory agents, and muscle relaxants) (P<0.001) and used less physical therapy (0.2 percent vs. 2.6 percent, P<0.05). More than 90 percent of the patients in both groups were satisfied with their care.

Conclusions. Osteopathic manual care and standard medical care have similar clinical results in patients with subacute low back pain. However, the use of medication is greater with standard care. (N Engl J Med 1999;341:1426-31.)


Source Information
From the Departments of Orthopedic Surgery (G.B.J.A.) and Preventive Medicine (T.L., A.M.D., S.L.), Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago; and Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Downers Grove, Ill. (R.E.K., J.A.L.). Address reprint requests to Dr. Andersson at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, 1653 W. Congress Pkwy., 1471 Jelke, Chicago, IL 60612, or at [email protected].