Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41815324›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment for Asthma: A Systematic Review of Objective Pulmonary Function Outcomes.

Alexander Ponce, Oliver Perrine, Kevin A Heintzelman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Alexander PonceInternal Medicine, William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, USA.
Oliver PerrineInternal Medicine, William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, USA.
Kevin A HeintzelmanInternal Medicine, Baptist Memorial Health Care, Jackson, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Asthma is a common obstructive airway disease associated with significant functional impairment and morbidity. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) has been proposed as an adjunctive therapy to address musculoskeletal and respiratory mechanical dysfunctions associated with asthma; however, supporting evidence remains limited. This systematic review evaluates whether OMT, compared with sham treatment or usual care, improves pulmonary function outcomes in patients with asthma, as measured by peak expiratory flow (PEF) and spirometric indices including forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and forced vital capacity (FVC). A systematic literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Semantic Scholar databases was conducted to identify clinical studies evaluating OMT in patients with asthma. Five clinical studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Sample sizes were small across studies, and there was substantial heterogeneity in study design, intervention protocols, and outcome measures. While some studies reported improvements in pulmonary function following OMT, the overall risk of bias was moderate, and the certainty of evidence was low to moderate. In conclusion, available evidence suggests that OMT may be associated with improvements in pulmonary function in patients with asthma; however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to limited sample sizes, heterogeneity, and methodological limitations. Larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to more definitively determine the role of OMT in the management of asthma.

Indexed as

asthmaommomtosteopathic manipulative treatmentosteopathic medicinereactive airway disease

Identifiers

PMID41815324
PMCPMC12975115

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.