Skip to main content

Table 4 Stratified results.

From: Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

   No. of Subjects    
Model No. of
Contrasts
OMT Control Effect
Size
95% CI P
OMT vs. Active Treatment or Placebo Control
Median contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 6 193 142 -0.26 -0.48 – -0.05 .02
   Random-effects model 6 193 142 -0.26 -0.48 – -0.05 .02
Best-case scenario 6 174 132 -0.34 -0.57 – -0.11 .004
Worst-case scenario 6 183 134 -0.07 -0.29 – 0.16 .54
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Gibson [43] active treatment 5 154 109 -0.33 -0.58 – -0.08 .01
   Gibson [43] placebo control 5 155 115 -0.26 -0.51 – -0.02 .03
Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded 5 185 138 -0.24 -0.47 – -0.02 .03
All contrasts 16 534 400 -0.21 -0.34 – -0.08 .002
OMT vs. No Treatment Control
All contrasts 4 193 120 -0.53 -0.76 – -0.30 <.001
Trials Performed in the United Kingdom
Median contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 4 105 84 -0.29 -0.58 – 0.00 .050
   Random-effects model 4 105 84 -0.30 -0.63 – 0.02 .06
Best-case scenario 4 105 88 -0.36 -0.64 – -0.07 .01
Worst-case scenario 4 100 83 -0.11 -0.40 – 0.19 .48
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Gibson [43] active treatment 3 66 51 -0.46 -0.83 – -0.09 .02
   Gibson [43] placebo control 3 67 57 -0.30 -0.66 – 0.05 .10
Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded 3 97 80 -0.26 -0.56 – 0.04 .09
All contrasts 10 294 247 -0.23 -0.40 – -0.06 .01
Trials Performed in the United States
Median contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 4 213 147 -0.31 -0.52 – -0.10 .004
   Random-effects model 4 213 147 -0.32 -0.57 – -0.06 .01
Best-case scenario 4 188 132 -0.38 -0.61 – -0.16 .001
Worst-case scenario 4 198 138 -0.22 -0.44 – 0.00 .050
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Licciardone [46] placebo control 3 171 130 -0.24 -0.47 – -0.01 .04
   Licciardone [46] no treatment control 3 181 128 -0.36 -0.59 – -0.14 .002
All contrasts 10 433 273 -0.33 -0.48 – -0.18 <.001
Short-Term Follow-Up
Median contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 5 181 130 -0.28 -0.51 – -0.06 .01
   Random-effects model 5 181 130 -0.31 -0.61 – -0.01 .046
Best-case scenario 5 196 142 -0.41 -0.62 – -0.19 <.001
Worst-case scenario 5 181 136 -0.10 -0.32 – 0.12 .38
All contrasts 9 357 258 -0.23 -0.39 – -0.07 .01
Intermediate-Term Follow-Up
Median (all) contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 7 283 209 -0.33 -0.51 – -0.15 <.001
   Random-effects model 7 283 209 -0.36 -0.63 – -0.10 .01
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Gibson [43] active treatment and Licciardone [46] placebo control 5 209 161 -0.31 -0.52 – -0.10 .004
   Gibson [43] active treatment and Licciardone [46] no treatment control 5 209 158 -0.45 -0.65 – -0.24 <.001
   Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] placebo control 5 209 166 -0.25 -0.46 – -0.05 .02
   Gibson [43] placebo control and Licciardone [46] no treatment control 5 209 163 -0.39 -0.59 – -0.18 <.001
Long-Term Follow-Up
Median (all) contrasts       
   Fixed-effects model* 4 87 53 -0.40 -0.74 – -0.05 .03
   Random-effects model 4 87 53 -0.41 -0.82 – -0.01 .046
Median contrasts, one OMT vs control treatment comparison per trial       
   Licciardone [46] placebo control 3 55 38 -0.23 -0.65 – 0.19 .28
   Licciardone [46] no treatment control 3 55 34 -0.64 -1.08 – -0.20 .01
Median contrasts, Cleary [47] trial excluded 3 79 49 -0.36 -0.72 – 0.01 .054
  1. CI denotes confidence interval; OMT, osteopathic manipulative treatment.
  2. *Tests of homogeneity, P = .45 and P = .06 for active treatment or placebo control, and no treatment control groups, respectively; P = .32 and P = .26 for trials in the United Kingdom and the United States, respectively; and P = .14, P = .06, and P = .28 for short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up, respectively.
\