Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40002804›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2025

"The Dark Side of Musculoskeletal Care": Why Do Ineffective Techniques Seem to Work? A Comprehensive Review of Complementary and Alternative Therapies.

Lucas Mamud-Meroni, Germán E Tarcaya, Andoni Carrasco-Uribarren, Giacomo Rossettini, Mar Flores-Cortes, Luis Ceballos-Laita

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Anchored and Propagated Updating Within Pseudoscientific Belief Systems.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lucas Mamud-MeroniDepartment of Kinesiology and Physiotherapy, Flores University, Neuquén Q8300, Argentina.ORCID 0009-0001-4657-3811
Germán E TarcayaDepartment of Kinesiology and Physiotherapy, Flores University, Neuquén Q8300, Argentina.ORCID 0009-0002-1321-6604
Andoni Carrasco-UribarrenFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat International de Catalunya, 08195 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0906-9114
Giacomo RossettiniSchool of Physiotherapy, University of Verona, 37129 Verona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1623-7681
Mar Flores-CortesFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Malaga, 29071 Malaga, Spain.
Luis Ceballos-LaitaDepartment of Surgery, Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology and Physiotherapy, University of Valladolid, 42004 Soria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2170-8783

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing interest in complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) for musculoskeletal care has sparked significant debate, particularly regarding their biological plausibility and clinical effectiveness. This comprehensive review critically examines the use of two of the most widely utilized CAMs-osteopathy and chiropractic care-over the past 25 years, focusing on their biological plausibility, clinical effectiveness, and potential mechanisms of action. Our analysis of current research and clinical studies reveals that osteopathy and chiropractic are based on concepts such as "somatic dysfunction" and "vertebral subluxation", which lack robust empirical validation. While these therapies are often presented as credible treatment options, studies evaluating their effectiveness frequently exhibit serious methodological flaws, providing insufficient empirical support for their recommendation as first-line treatments for musculoskeletal conditions. The effects and mechanisms underlying osteopathy and chiropractic remain poorly understood. However, placebo responses-mediated by the interaction of contextual, psychological, and non-specific factors-appear to play a significant role in observed outcomes. The integration of therapies with limited biological plausibility, whose effects may primarily rely on placebo effects, into healthcare systems raises important ethical dilemmas. This review highlights the need for rigorous adherence to scientific principles and calls for a more comprehensive investigation into biobehavioral, contextual, and psychosocial factors that interact with the specific effects of these interventions. Such efforts are essential to advancing our understanding of CAMs, enhancing clinical decision-making, promoting ethical practices, and guiding future research aimed at improving patient care in musculoskeletal disorders.

Indexed as

biological plausibilitychiropracticcomplementary therapiesevidence-based medicinemusculoskeletal diseasesosteopathic medicineplacebo effect

Identifiers

PMID40002804
PMCPMC11853516

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.