What is omm???

[PreMedHopeful]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Seriously, I have read a little about it online but never seen its use in person and I want to know is it effective?

If it is, why don't allopathic schools also use it since "MD>DO" in terms of residency spots and prestige issues....even though in doctor terms and to the patient MD=DO....

Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine-----is it in or out for next generation doctors?

 

[da Vincis World]

I know a few MD's who teach at DO schools that use OMM. The best way to learn about OMM is to find a DO to shadow.

 

[da Vincis World]

You can find a DO to shadow here: http://www.osteopathic.org/YOM/mentor_search.htm

 

[JaggerPlate]

OMM is cool.

 

[NonTradDO]

http://www.osteopathic.org/index.cfm?PageID=ost_omt

 

[Mohammed1989]

i thought omm is what you say when your meditating omm just with like a million more m's 😉

 

[schussboarder]

Seriously, I have read a little about it online but never seen its use in person and I want to know is it effective?

If it is, why don't allopathic schools also use it since "MD>DO" in terms of residency spots and prestige issues....even though in doctor terms and to the patient MD=DO....

Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine-----is it in or out for next generation doctors?

Some allopathic schools have started to offer it as a CME course (harvard for example) where allopathic physicians can learn OMM techniques to use in their practice.

 

[Laryngophed]

Some allopathic schools have started to offer it as a CME course (harvard for example) where allopathic physicians can learn OMM techniques to use in their practice.

This warms my cold heart.

 

[devlyyn]

In my limited opinion as an OMS1 OMM is something that, like a foreign language, if you don't use it a lot you'll forget. It's one of those things that can be faked to some extent (mostly b/c when you are demonstrating techniques for exams, your "patient" is not actually going to have a dysfunction), and the fakers will be the first to tell you its BS. Everyone I have talked to that has taken the time to both really learn it and practice it have said it is very effective. It is recognized as a legitimate treatment by insurance companies (as far as I know) so you can bill for it. It is just like any other skill, you use it and get better at it and it can be great. You don't use it and you lose it. If it was completely 100% BS I seriously doubt it would have hung around this long.

 

[Thomas Hearns]

If it was completely 100% BS I seriously doubt it would have hung around this long.

We can only wish this were the case with things that are BS 😀

 

[277768]

If it was completely 100% BS I seriously doubt it would have hung around this long.

Yeah, what about palm readers and psychics? They shouldn't be around either.

 

[Bacchus]

Yeah, what about palm readers and psychics? They shouldn't be around either.

You're not applying to osteopathic schools. Don't discredit our (future) education when you aren't walking in our shoes.

 

[277768]

You're not applying to osteopathic schools. Don't discredit our (future) education when you aren't walking in our shoes.

I'm not discrediting OMM, I'm just saying that the person's supposition about things not being BS because they've been around a long time is just...well...not true.

 

[Lokhtar]

You're not applying to osteopathic schools. Don't discredit our (future) education when you aren't walking in our shoes.

That's.....not how science works.

 

[pianoman511]

True, but I think in this case the point being made is that osteopathic medical students have a unique perspective on OMM. Most allopathic students don't really understand what OMM is all about since they have never been exposed to it. Granted, I don't think all of the material presented in OMM makes sense or is based on scientific evidence, but that being said I do think it does have merit and does produce results.

When I tell an allopathic student that I found somatic dysfunction at T5 and it is F Sr Rr they would probably look at me like I had 3 heads ? But if I show them where there is a problem, what I feel, and what it feels like after I correct the dysfunction that may open their eyes.

 

[Lokhtar]

When I tell an allopathic student that I found somatic dysfunction at T5 and it is F Sr Rr they would probably look at me like I had 3 heads ? But if I show them where there is a problem, what I feel, and what it feels like after I correct the dysfunction that may open their eyes.

That's not science either. Anecdotal evidence = no evidence. By the criteria you mention, you are operating on the same plane as snake oil salesmen, homeopaths, etc. I don't think OMM is on that criteria (except things like Cranial, which is), but what you're describing is verbatim out of the book of charlatans.

 

[JaggerPlate]

That's not science either. Anecdotal evidence = no evidence. By the criteria you mention, you are operating on the same plane as snake oil salesmen, homeopaths, etc. I don't think OMM is on that criteria (except things like Cranial, which is), but what you're describing is verbatim out of the book of charlatans.

I'm not exactly sure how this argument is unfolding, but I wanted to point out that OMM is a catch all term for a ton of different manual manipulation techniques. Cranial is one of these various techniques and is disputed by many. I wouldn't use one manipulation tool to discredit a whole therapy. It would be like throwing your entire tool box away because one screwdriver keeps skipping and stripping the heads.

 

[air bud]

i am a dpm at DMU and take classes with the DO's. From what I have heard DO's tell me, they think about half is really good and useful and the other half they think is dumb and are not sure how it has survived. Most of them are still somewhat weary of it, but do see how it can be beneficial, regardless if they plan on ever using it

 

[Lokhtar]

I'm not exactly sure how this argument is unfolding, but I wanted to point out that OMM is a catch all term for a ton of different manual manipulation techniques. Cranial is one of these various techniques and is disputed by many. I wouldn't use one manipulation tool to discredit a whole therapy. It would be like throwing your entire tool box away because one screwdriver keeps skipping and stripping the heads.

And that's why I specifically mentioned cranial - that's the only one I've done sufficient research on, and it's clearly been demonstrated to be pure and complete quackery. Anyone who practices it is a quack and should not have a medical license, same as a physician who prescribes homeopathic remedies.

I did not say all of OMM techniques were like that, because I suspect some aren't, and more importantly, I have not done extensive research to support or refute that claim. In fact, in the little research I've done, I know that some aspects of OMM have been shown to be beneficial for some conditions, and I have absolutely no problem with that. Of course, the theoretical basis behind those techniques does give me a lot of pause, but that is a separate issue from the efficacy.

I was simply pointing out that anecdotal evidence is not scientific.

 

[Bacchus]

That's not science either. Anecdotal evidence = no evidence. By the criteria you mention, you are operating on the same plane as snake oil salesmen, homeopaths, etc. I don't think OMM is on that criteria (except things like Cranial, which is), but what you're describing is verbatim out of the book of charlatans.

There's no science in this... atleast that he's trying to prove. He used established OMM techniques to diagnose the dysfunction. Upon palpation he was able to reaffirm his notion. Showing this to another student is a good thing. Is it much use to the MD student? Probably not, but it does show there's another diagnosis modality available in addition to costly tests.

 

[pianoman511]

That's not science either. Anecdotal evidence = no evidence. By the criteria you mention, you are operating on the same plane as snake oil salesmen, homeopaths, etc. I don't think OMM is on that criteria (except things like Cranial, which is), but what you're describing is verbatim out of the book of charlatans.

Of course I am providing anectodal evidence since OMM has just as many studies refuting it's use as lauding it's benefits. However, that being said, most people regard a successful therapy as that which takes an abnormal condition and corrects it producing a positive result. Cranial I can't comment on because I like many people have my doubts about it, but in terms of other treatment modalities such as HVLA there are significant changes after treatment that do correspond to relief of symptoms. For proof of that just ask those who have been to a chiropractor who uses similar techniques.

And there are many things in science which there is no scientific evidence for, but we still accept - and plenty of those are in medicine.

 

[Lokhtar]

Of course I am providing anectodal evidence since OMM has just as many studies refuting it's use as lauding it's benefits.

No, in absence of clear scientific evidence, you do not simply resort to anecdotes. You're just confusing the issue because anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. Under no circumstances can you say anything about anything using anecdotal evidence.

For proof of that just ask those who have been to a chiropractor who uses similar techniques.

That's not proof. The fact that HVLA has been shown, by studies, to provide relief from pain is. If I have to talk to someone and they tell me it's a fact - it's not. Either you prove it, or you don't. I read the study regarding HVLA, and I have no problem accepting its benefits. I have not said anything against it, and I am happy that it works.

And there are many things in science which there is no scientific evidence for, but we still accept - and plenty of those are in medicine.

In science - no. In medicine, yes. And that's a problem, and one that is thankfully becoming a smaller and smaller part of medicine every day, as we have more and more evidence for and against treatment.

You guys are trying to attribute to me things I have not said. I made three sort-of-separate points (1) Anecdotal evidence is not science (2) If I have to trust what someone says based on their credentials, it's not science (3) Cranial is bunk. That's all I have said. I have no problems with using any treatment modalities that have been shown to have a positive effect scientifically.

 

[pianoman511]

No, in absence of clear scientific evidence, you do not simply resort to anecdotes. You're just confusing the issue because anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. Under no circumstances can you say anything about anything using anecdotal evidence.



That's not proof. The fact that HVLA has been shown, by studies, to provide relief from pain is. If I have to talk to someone and they tell me it's a fact - it's not. Either you prove it, or you don't. I read the study regarding HVLA, and I have no problem accepting its benefits. I have not said anything against it, and I am happy that it works.



In science - no. In medicine, yes. And that's a problem, and one that is thankfully becoming a smaller and smaller part of medicine every day, as we have more and more evidence for and against treatment.

You guys are trying to attribute to me things I have not said. I made three sort-of-separate points (1) Anecdotal evidence is not science (2) If I have to trust what someone says based on their credentials, it's not science (3) Cranial is bunk. That's all I have said. I have no problems with using any treatment modalities that have been shown to have a positive effect scientifically.

OK, well the simple fact is that in my original post I clearly stated an OPINION. Hence the "I Think" designation. I am not trying to scientifically prove OMM. As I previously stated there are plenty of studies on both sides of the argument. That doesn't change my opinion that there are some OMM techniques work.

 

[Lokhtar]

And I wasn't responding to that line - that's not the one I quoted in my response to you. You can think whatever you want - that's your right. I want my doctors to follow the evidence, but that's not what I was responding to and that's a separate subject.

 

[pianoman511]

True, but I think in this case the point being made is that osteopathic medical students have a unique perspective on OMM. Most allopathic students don't really understand what OMM is all about since they have never been exposed to it. QUOTE]

It's not the case that I was generalizing, mainly just making the point that if you are not exposed to something then it's a bit hard to understand it.