Richard Irving , Emma Schmidt , Michaela Stone , Regina K. Fleming , Jennifer Yanhua Xie
{"title":"元流行病学回顾:骨科手法治疗研究临床试验设计中的盲法和假治疗","authors":"Richard Irving , Emma Schmidt , Michaela Stone , Regina K. Fleming , Jennifer Yanhua Xie","doi":"10.1016/j.ijosm.2023.100705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span>To analyze the consistency of study designs in osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) research, focusing on blinding protocols and the use of </span>sham treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Data source and study selection</h3><p>PubMed and CINAHL were searched in January 2022. A total of 83 research studies between 2009 and 2021 were selected based on the presence of a double- or single-blind study design and/or sham treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Data extraction and analysis</h3><p>Data regarding the primary outcome measures, blinding design, measures used to determine success of blinding, osteopathic technique used, and sham technique used for each eligible study were extracted and compared among different study designs.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 5968 subjects participated in the 83 trials. The study population mainly consisted of asymptomatic individuals (25 %) and chronic back pain<span> patients (19 %). Light touch was employed most commonly (49 %) as the sham treatment, followed by unrelated sham (20 %) and incomplete maneuvers (20 %). Most studies blinded the subjects (80 %) or the outcome evaluator/data analyzer (71 %), while only 20 % studies blinded the osteopathic physicians.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p><span>Strict double-blinding is achievable for OMT clinical research by blinding the subjects and data collectors/analyzers rather than the osteopaths providing the actual treatment. The use of questionnaires to determine the success of blinding should be considered. Additionally, including OMT-naïve subjects is preferred to enhance blinding success. When designing a sham treatment, careful consideration should be given to blinding the data collector, accounting for the </span>placebo effect, and incorporating an additional no-treatment control group to improve the rigor of the study design.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><p></p><ul><li><span>•</span><span><p>There is a general paucity of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) clinical trials. The design of OMT clinical studies has room to improve.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>Double-blind can be achieved by blinding the subjects and evaluators and data collectors/analyzers, which is much more practical than blinding the osteopaths who provide the active treatments.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>Various methods have been utilized as sham control for OMT, including light touch, unrelated sham, incomplete maneuver, no-treatment control, purposefully incorrect positioning, and combination of several techniques. Among them, light touch is most frequently adopted (49 % of studies).</p></span></li></ul></div>","PeriodicalId":51068,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":"51 ","pages":"Article 100705"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-epidemiologic review: Blinding and sham treatment in clinical trial design for osteopathic manipulative treatment research\",\"authors\":\"Richard Irving , Emma Schmidt , Michaela Stone , Regina K. Fleming , Jennifer Yanhua Xie\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijosm.2023.100705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span>To analyze the consistency of study designs in osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) research, focusing on blinding protocols and the use of </span>sham treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Data source and study selection</h3><p>PubMed and CINAHL were searched in January 2022. A total of 83 research studies between 2009 and 2021 were selected based on the presence of a double- or single-blind study design and/or sham treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Data extraction and analysis</h3><p>Data regarding the primary outcome measures, blinding design, measures used to determine success of blinding, osteopathic technique used, and sham technique used for each eligible study were extracted and compared among different study designs.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 5968 subjects participated in the 83 trials. The study population mainly consisted of asymptomatic individuals (25 %) and chronic back pain<span> patients (19 %). Light touch was employed most commonly (49 %) as the sham treatment, followed by unrelated sham (20 %) and incomplete maneuvers (20 %). Most studies blinded the subjects (80 %) or the outcome evaluator/data analyzer (71 %), while only 20 % studies blinded the osteopathic physicians.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p><span>Strict double-blinding is achievable for OMT clinical research by blinding the subjects and data collectors/analyzers rather than the osteopaths providing the actual treatment. The use of questionnaires to determine the success of blinding should be considered. Additionally, including OMT-naïve subjects is preferred to enhance blinding success. When designing a sham treatment, careful consideration should be given to blinding the data collector, accounting for the </span>placebo effect, and incorporating an additional no-treatment control group to improve the rigor of the study design.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><p></p><ul><li><span>•</span><span><p>There is a general paucity of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) clinical trials. The design of OMT clinical studies has room to improve.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>Double-blind can be achieved by blinding the subjects and evaluators and data collectors/analyzers, which is much more practical than blinding the osteopaths who provide the active treatments.</p></span></li><li><span>•</span><span><p>Various methods have been utilized as sham control for OMT, including light touch, unrelated sham, incomplete maneuver, no-treatment control, purposefully incorrect positioning, and combination of several techniques. Among them, light touch is most frequently adopted (49 % of studies).</p></span></li></ul></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"volume\":\"51 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100705\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746068923000494\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746068923000494","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Meta-epidemiologic review: Blinding and sham treatment in clinical trial design for osteopathic manipulative treatment research
Objective
To analyze the consistency of study designs in osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) research, focusing on blinding protocols and the use of sham treatments.
Data source and study selection
PubMed and CINAHL were searched in January 2022. A total of 83 research studies between 2009 and 2021 were selected based on the presence of a double- or single-blind study design and/or sham treatment.
Data extraction and analysis
Data regarding the primary outcome measures, blinding design, measures used to determine success of blinding, osteopathic technique used, and sham technique used for each eligible study were extracted and compared among different study designs.
Results
A total of 5968 subjects participated in the 83 trials. The study population mainly consisted of asymptomatic individuals (25 %) and chronic back pain patients (19 %). Light touch was employed most commonly (49 %) as the sham treatment, followed by unrelated sham (20 %) and incomplete maneuvers (20 %). Most studies blinded the subjects (80 %) or the outcome evaluator/data analyzer (71 %), while only 20 % studies blinded the osteopathic physicians.
Conclusions
Strict double-blinding is achievable for OMT clinical research by blinding the subjects and data collectors/analyzers rather than the osteopaths providing the actual treatment. The use of questionnaires to determine the success of blinding should be considered. Additionally, including OMT-naïve subjects is preferred to enhance blinding success. When designing a sham treatment, careful consideration should be given to blinding the data collector, accounting for the placebo effect, and incorporating an additional no-treatment control group to improve the rigor of the study design.
Implications for practice
•
There is a general paucity of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) clinical trials. The design of OMT clinical studies has room to improve.
•
Double-blind can be achieved by blinding the subjects and evaluators and data collectors/analyzers, which is much more practical than blinding the osteopaths who provide the active treatments.
•
Various methods have been utilized as sham control for OMT, including light touch, unrelated sham, incomplete maneuver, no-treatment control, purposefully incorrect positioning, and combination of several techniques. Among them, light touch is most frequently adopted (49 % of studies).
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine is a peer-reviewed journal that provides for the publication of high quality research articles and review papers that are as broad as the many disciplines that influence and underpin the principles and practice of osteopathic medicine. Particular emphasis is given to basic science research, clinical epidemiology and health social science in relation to osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine.
The Editorial Board encourages submission of articles based on both quantitative and qualitative research designs. The Editorial Board also aims to provide a forum for discourse and debate on any aspect of osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine with the aim of critically evaluating existing practices in regard to the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with neuromusculoskeletal disorders and somatic dysfunction. All manuscripts submitted to the IJOM are subject to a blinded review process. The categories currently available for publication include reports of original research, review papers, commentaries and articles related to clinical practice, including case reports. Further details can be found in the IJOM Instructions for Authors. Manuscripts are accepted for publication with the understanding that no substantial part has been, or will be published elsewhere.