A clinical trial shows osteopathic manipulation significantly increases diaphragmatic mobility in healthy patients, with potential applications for improving respiratory capabilities.
Extract
[...] The comparators for the study are composed of two distinct groups: a 'placebo' group, subjected to a sham treatment technique, and another control group that is not subjected to any technique. The experimental group is subjected to the chosen osteopathic techniques. The study is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial, which allows for the elimination of many biases. Randomization allows for the elimination of the selection bias of the volunteers. It is a double-blind trial, which limits biases due to the observer (subjective interpretation of the results) and the patient (self-suggestion, positive or negative). [...]
[...] Statistical tools and a randomization software were used for this study. Standard deviations, analysis of variance (ANOVA), P values are indicated, both on the analysis of the composition of the 3 randomized groups, but also for the analysis of the results obtained. A statistically significant increase in diaphragmatic mobility was observed in the experimental group after osteopathic manipulation = 14.5 mm, P [...]
[...] - The osteopathic manipulation techniques applied did not induce a modification of the diaphragm thickness, whereas this parameter is generally correlated to muscle contractility. - In parallel, no systematic evaluation of the pulmonary capacity of the participants was made. - This study evaluated the effects of a single osteopathic manipulation on each participant. It would be interesting to explore: - the long-term effects of these manipulations on diaphragm mobility and thickness - the effects of these manipulations on the pulmonary capacities of patients with respiratory disorders, elderly people, etc. [...]
[...] A strong correlation was observed between the ultrasound measurements and the score attributed by the osteopath to evaluate the diaphragmatic mobility (by testing the domes and pillars of the diaphragm). The results can be considered as reliable on a statistical (robust) basis. All data are expressed as means or medians (± standard deviation or 95% confidence interval for continuous variables or as percentages for categorical variables. The sample size calculation was performed assuming a clinically significant change in diaphragmatic mobility of at least 12 mm after treatment. [...]
[...] Their medical histories were studied and recorded. One volunteer left the experimental group during the trial for reasons of intolerance to osteopathic practices. This is a double-blind trial, so neither the patients, nor the sonographers, nor the osteopaths knew the techniques applied or the results of the measurements, respectively. The demographic and anthropometric characteristics of the volunteers studied are recorded and registered (published statistics): age, BMI, sex, smoking, sedentary work, physical activity. The three randomization groups do not differ significantly on these characteristics. [...]
