From March 2020. I guess its worth reposting again.
Below is from a post I put up in January 2020. I believe it is worth reposting in this thread. These articles are from mainstream peer reviewed journals, some of the top in their specialty. Many more exist in the JAOA file. Noll, et al, has studies on pneumonia with N's in the 200's.
I have been listening to medical students trash OMM for a couple years now without any feedback. Remember pre meds read SDN and might actually think you know what you are talking about. It is not all pseudoscience. Mainstream journals aren't in the habit of publishing pseudoscience.
Annals of Internal Medicine: 2004, 141; 432-439
Manipulative Therapy in Addition to Usual Medical Care for Patients with Shoulder Dysfunction and Pain;
Gert J.D. Bergman, et al.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, (ACOG Green Journal), Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202:43.e1-08
Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment of Back Pain and Related Symptoms during pregnancy: a Randomized Controlled Trial
John C. Licciardone, D.O. et al.
Annals of Internal Medicine; 21 December 2004; Vol 141: Number 12; pp. 920-928.
A Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Patients with Low Back Pain Most Likely to Benefit from Spinal Manipulation: A validation Study
Maj John D. Childs, PhD, et. al.
Annals of Thoracic Surgery: 2017 Jul;104(1): `45-152. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.09.110. Epub 2017 Jan18
Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Improves Heart Surgery Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Racca V, et. al.
These are some articles published in peer reviewed mainstream journals showing positive correlations with OMT. These articles don't represent a cure for cancer or for the common cold, but suggest OMT was beneficial in their study and like anything, more work is needed. Students having trouble wrapping their arms around cranial and Chapmans points is understandable. Too many students have very firm opinions about OMT and should reserve them until they have actually treated patients, not classmates, with OMT. Once again, these mainstream journals are not in the habit of publishing pseudoscience. Whew, got that off my chest.....
In addition,for the enthusiasts of Evidence Based Medicine, in all reality, it is actually "Best" Evidence Based Medicine. In medicine, before one changes the parameters of their practice, data should be reproduced at other centers. It can be risky to change ones practice on a single peer reviewed article. Why do I say this? The Lancet, probably the most prestigious medical journal on the planet, published a paper suggesting that childhood vaccines appeared to have a role in Autism. We today, are still suffering from the fallout of that error with the ubiquitous anti vaxer movement. Perdue Pharma published data in in the New England Journal of Med if my memory is accurate, during the 90's that suggested one could not become addicted to opiates if they were taken while one was experiencing pain. We have seen the horrific results of that in the opioid epidemic. 250 to 300 drugs were taken off the market last year by the FDA. Good work, right? Except for the fact that the FDA, using Evidence Based Medicine, APPROVED them initially. Medical students, for all of the decades I was in med ed, have attempted to tell their trainers what they need to know, having never practiced medicine. I take it all with a grain of salt.