Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) and osteopathy are widely used hands-on approaches in musculoskeletal healthcare. Although both employ similar manual techniques, they arise from distinct professional traditions and regulatory frameworks. The purpose of this review was to compare OMPT and osteopathy with respect to definitions, conceptual models, clinical effectiveness, and integration within contemporary evidence-based practice.
- OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE - PUBLISHED 2026
ORTHOPAEDIC MANUAL PHYSICAL THERAPY VERSUS OSTEOPATHY: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS, CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS, AND EVIDENCE-BASED INTEGRATION IN MUSCULOSKELETAL CARE.
Author:
Tobias Giesen | DPT (USA), MSc SEM (UK), BSc PT (NL)
Independent Researcher in Physiotherapy and Sports Medicine
Germany
Abstract:
Introduction: Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) and osteopathy are widely used hands-on approaches in musculoskeletal healthcare. Although both employ similar manual techniques, they arise from distinct professional traditions and regulatory frameworks. The purpose of this review was to compare OMPT and osteopathy with respect to definitions, conceptual models, clinical effectiveness, and integration within contemporary evidence-based practice.
Methods: A structured narrative integrative review of peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2026 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, umbrella reviews, and clinical practice guidelines addressing manual therapy within OMPT or osteopathic frameworks were included. Outcomes examined were pain, disability, functional status, and quality of life. Evidence was synthesized qualitatively due to methodological heterogeneity.
Results: Both OMPT-related manual therapy and osteopathic manipulative treatment demonstrate small- to-moderate short-term improvements in pain and disability in nonspecific low back and neck pain populations. Effect sizes are generally modest and often diminish in sham-controlled designs. Stronger and more sustained outcomes are observed when manual therapy is integrated with structured exercise programs. No consistent evidence indicates clear superiority of one professional framework over the other in terms of clinical outcomes.
Discussion: Differences between OMPT and osteopathy appear to be primarily structural and professional rather than outcome-based. OMPT is typically embedded within physiotherapy systems emphasizing exercise, clinical reasoning, and standardized safety frameworks. Osteopathy demonstrates greater variability in integration depending on jurisdiction and training model. Across both approaches, long-term outcomes are more strongly associated with active rehabilitation and self-management than with passive manual techniques alone.
Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that clinical effectiveness depends less on whether treatment is delivered under an OMPT or osteopathic label and more on integration within comprehensive, guidelineconcordant, exercise-centered care. Manual therapy may serve as a useful adjunct for short-term symptom modulation but is unlikely to drive sustained improvement in isolation.
Keywords: orthopaedic manual physical therapy; osteopathy; osteopathic manipulative treatment; manual therapy; low back pain; neck pain; evidence-based practice; musculoskeletal rehabilitation
This paper is an independent academic publication in the field of Physiotherapy Science and Sports Medicine. The author declares no institutional affiliation and no conflicts of interest.
Manual therapy remains one of the most widely applied interventions in musculoskeletal healthcare. Within this broad domain, two approaches are frequently discussed—sometimes interchangeably, sometimes contentiously: Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) and Osteopathy. Although both involve hands-on techniques targeting the neuro-musculoskeletal system, they arise from distinct professional traditions, regulatory frameworks, and conceptual models. The question is not merely semantic. For clinicians, educators, and health systems increasingly guided by evidence-based practice, understanding whether OMPT and osteopathy differ meaningfully in theoretical grounding, clinical reasoning, safety frameworks, and empirical support is essential.
Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) is a recognized subspecialty within physiotherapy that focuses on the management of neuro-musculoskeletal disorders through a combination of manual techniques, exercise therapy, and clinical reasoning (IFOMPT, n.d.). It is explicitly embedded within contemporary evidence-based healthcare structures and emphasizes integration with active rehabilitation, patient education, and load management. In recent years, international efforts have formalized safety and decision-making processes, particularly for cervical spine interventions, through documents such as the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework (Rushton et al., 2023). These frameworks aim to standardize risk assessment for vascular pathologies and promote safe clinical reasoning prior to high-velocity manipulative techniques.
Osteopathy, by contrast, represents a heterogeneous professional landscape. In some countries (e.g., the United States), osteopathic physicians (DOs) are fully licensed medical doctors who may employ osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) within a broader biomedical scope of practice. In other regions (e.g., parts of Europe and Australia), osteopathy functions as an independent primary-contact manual therapy profession. Contemporary osteopathic education standards emphasize whole-person assessment and manual intervention strategies across musculoskeletal and systemic domains (QAA, 2024). Despite these regulatory differences, clinical osteopathic care typically includes spinal and peripheral joint mobilization/manipulation, soft tissue techniques, and occasionally cranial or visceral approaches.
Given these structural similarities in technique, the critical issue becomes whether OMPT and osteopathy differ in clinically meaningful ways when examined through modern evidence-based criteria. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have investigated the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment for spinal pain conditions. For example, an updated meta-analysis reported that osteopathic interventions were not consistently superior to sham interventions for pain, disability, or quality of life in neck and low back pain populations (Ceballos-Laita et al., 2024). Conversely, umbrella reviews have suggested moderate evidence for osteopathic care in certain contexts, including chronic nonspecific low back pain and pregnancy-related low back pain (Zipp et al., 2025). These findings illustrate a recurring theme in manual therapy research: effect sizes are typically small to moderate, context-dependent, and influenced by comparator choice.
Parallel evidence exists within the OMPT literature. Contemporary clinical practice guidelines for low back pain consistently include spinal manipulation as an option within multimodal conservative care, typically in combination with exercise and education rather than as a standalone intervention (Zhou et al., 2024). Similarly, randomized evidence suggests that manual therapy may provide short-term improvements in pain and function when added to exercise programs, although exercise remains the dominant long-term driver of outcome (Narenthiran et al., 2025). These patterns highlight a defining characteristic of modern OMPT: manual techniques are frequently conceptualized as adjunctive modulators that facilitate active rehabilitation rather than as primary curative mechanisms.
The conceptual divergence between OMPT and osteopathy may therefore lie less in specific hands-on techniques and more in epistemology and integration within broader care models. OMPT is typically anchored in a biomedical and biopsychosocial framework closely aligned with physiotherapy standards, emphasizing measurable impairments, movement analysis, graded loading, and guideline-concordant management. Osteopathy historically incorporates principles such as body unity, structure-function interrelationship, and self-regulatory capacity. While these principles do not inherently conflict with contemporary rehabilitation science, their operationalization within research contexts varies considerably. Safety governance further distinguishes modern OMPT practice. The development of international screening frameworks for cervical manipulation reflects growing emphasis on vascular risk stratification and medico-legal accountability (Rushton et al., 2023). Although osteopathic practitioners may follow similar screening processes, internationally standardized safety frameworks are more explicitly articulated within the OMPT literature.
From a patient-centered perspective, the practical question is not which professional identity is philosophically superior, but rather in which clinical scenarios each approach demonstrates evidencebased benefit. Current research suggests that manual therapy—whether delivered under OMPT or osteopathic frameworks—may be appropriate for patients with acute or subacute nonspecific low back pain, neck pain with mobility deficits, and certain headache subtypes when integrated with active management (Blanpied et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2024). However, high-quality sham-controlled trials remind clinicians that contextual effects and therapeutic alliance likely contribute significantly to outcomes, particularly when effect sizes are modest.
In summary, OMPT and osteopathy share overlapping technical repertoires but differ in professional regulation, integration within rehabilitation models, and degree of formalized evidence-based governance. Contemporary literature suggests that the clinical value of either approach depends less on professional label and more on appropriate patient selection, integration with exercise-based rehabilitation, adherence to safety frameworks, and alignment with current clinical guidelines. The following sections will systematically examine definitions, similarities, differences, and comparative evidence to clarify where each approach stands within modern musculoskeletal care.
Methods
This article was designed as a structured narrative integrative review to critically compare Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) and osteopathy with regard to conceptual foundations, professional governance, clinical effectiveness, and integration within contemporary evidence-based musculoskeletal care. A quantitative meta-analysis was not considered appropriate due to substantial heterogeneity in intervention protocols, professional definitions, comparator types, and outcome measures across the available literature. Instead, a systematic qualitative synthesis was conducted, informed by established standards for transparent reporting and methodological appraisal (Page et al., 2021; Shea et al., 2017).
The rationale for selecting an integrative design was threefold. First, both OMPT and osteopathy encompass broad and internally diverse treatment approaches. Interventions frequently combine mobilization, manipulation, soft tissue techniques, education, and exercise, making strict categorization difficult. Second, comparator variability is considerable. Manual therapy trials compare interventions against sham procedures, exercise, usual care, or multimodal rehabilitation, and effect sizes differ substantially depending on comparator strength. Third, OMPT and osteopathy operate within different professional and regulatory structures internationally, influencing scope of practice, integration into healthcare systems, and interpretation of outcomes.
A structured literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search period covered publications from January 2015 to March 2026 in order to capture contemporary evidence while maintaining methodological recency. Search terms were organized into three conceptual clusters. Intervention-related terms included “orthopaedic manual physical therapy,” “OMPT,” “manual therapy,” “spinal manipulation,” “joint mobilization,” “osteopathy,” and “osteopathic manipulative treatment.” Clinical condition terms included “low back pain,” “neck pain,” “musculoskeletal pain,” “cervicogenic headache,” and “spinal disorders.” Methodological filters included “randomized controlled trial,” “systematic review,” “meta-analysis,” “umbrella review,” and “clinical practice guideline.” Boolean operators were applied to combine terms appropriately, and filters were used to restrict results to adult populations and peer-reviewed publications.
Reference lists of high-quality systematic reviews were screened manually to identify potentially eligible studies not retrieved through database searches. Search transparency and reporting logic were guided by PRISMA 2020 recommendations (Page et al., 2021).
Eligibility criteria required that included studies investigate OMPT, physiotherapist-delivered manual therapy, osteopathic care, or osteopathic manipulative treatment in adult musculoskeletal populations. Only randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, umbrella reviews, and clinical practice guidelines were included. Studies had to report clinically relevant outcomes such as pain intensity, disability, functional capacity, or quality of life. Case reports, pediatric-only studies, non-peer-reviewed publications, and narrative opinion pieces without empirical basis were excluded. Studies were also excluded if the intervention could not be clearly characterized as manual therapy within an OMPT or osteopathic framework.
Data extraction was conducted using a structured template. Extracted variables included author and year, study design, sample size, patient characteristics, detailed intervention description, comparator type, outcome measures, duration of follow-up, and principal findings. Particular emphasis was placed on whether manual therapy was delivered as a standalone intervention or as part of a multimodal program incorporating exercise and education. This distinction is clinically important because modern guidelines typically position manual therapy as an adjunct rather than a primary long-term treatment.
Risk of bias was appraised conceptually using contemporary methodological standards. Randomized trials were interpreted in light of the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool domains, including adequacy of randomization, deviations from intended intervention, completeness of outcome data, measurement bias, and selective reporting (Sterne et al., 2019). Systematic reviews were evaluated against key AMSTAR 2 criteria, including protocol registration, search adequacy, integration of risk-of-bias findings into conclusions, and consideration of publication bias (Shea et al., 2017). Clinical practice guidelines were interpreted according to clarity of evidence grading and transparency of recommendation strength.
Due to heterogeneity across intervention protocols and outcome measures, statistical pooling was not performed. Instead, evidence was synthesized across three analytic domains: conceptual and professional frameworks, clinical effectiveness outcomes, and integration within evidence-based rehabilitation models. Greater interpretive weight was assigned to sham-controlled trials and high-quality systematic reviews, as these designs provide stronger insight into the specificity and magnitude of treatment effects. Where findings conflicted, priority was given to studies with lower risk of bias and stronger comparator controls.
This methodological approach allows structured comparison of OMPT and osteopathy while acknowledging the inherent complexity of manual therapy research. Limitations of this review design, including variability in intervention definitions and scarcity of direct head-to-head comparisons, are addressed in the Discussion section.
Results
The literature search identified randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, umbrella reviews, and international clinical practice guidelines addressing manual therapy delivered within OMPT frameworks and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) across common musculoskeletal conditions. Direct head- to-head comparisons between OMPT and osteopathy were rare. Therefore, results are presented comparatively across conceptual frameworks, clinical effectiveness outcomes, and integration within evidence-based rehabilitation models.
With respect to conceptual and professional frameworks, OMPT is consistently defined as a physiotherapy subspecialty integrating manual techniques with exercise therapy and structured clinical reasoning (IFOMPT, n.d.). International governance structures emphasize postgraduate training standards and safety frameworks, particularly for cervical spine assessment and manipulation (Rushton et al., 2023). Osteopathy, in contrast, demonstrates greater international heterogeneity in scope of practice and regulatory context. Educational benchmarks emphasize whole-person assessment and structure-function relationships (QAA, 2024), yet integration within multidisciplinary rehabilitation systems varies substantially across countries.
In low back pain populations, both OMPT-related manual therapy and osteopathic interventions demonstrate small-to-moderate short-term improvements in pain and disability compared with minimal intervention or usual care. Contemporary clinical practice guideline overviews indicate that spinal manipulation is recommended as a treatment option for acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain when delivered within multimodal care, typically alongside exercise and education (Zhou et al., 2024). Randomized evidence suggests that adding manual therapy to exercise may yield greater short-term improvements than exercise alone, although long-term differences tend to diminish (Narenthiran et al., 2025).
For osteopathic manipulative treatment, findings are mixed. Umbrella reviews report moderate evidence for pain reduction in chronic nonspecific low back pain and pregnancy-related low back pain (Zipp et al., 2025). However, sham-controlled meta-analyses indicate that OMT is not consistently superior to placebo for pain intensity, disability, or quality of life in spinal pain populations (Ceballos-Laita et al., 2024). Effect sizes across both professions are generally small to moderate, and between-group differences are often clinically modest.
In neck pain populations, clinical practice guidelines support the use of manual therapy combined with exercise for patients with mobility deficits and certain subgroups such as cervicogenic headache (Blanpied et al., 2017). OMPT-related interventions are frequently embedded within structured exercise programs, and outcomes reflect short-term pain reduction and improved range of motion. Osteopathy-specific trials for neck pain demonstrate similar patterns, though evidence quality varies and sham-controlled data again reduce claims of technique-specific superiority.
Across conditions, integration with exercise appears to be a critical determinant of effectiveness. Studies consistently demonstrate that manual therapy used in isolation produces transient symptom modulation, whereas sustained functional improvement is more strongly associated with active rehabilitation strategies. This pattern applies to both OMPT-delivered and osteopathic interventions. Trials in which manual therapy is delivered without structured exercise components tend to show limited long-term advantage.
Safety reporting differs in emphasis between professional domains. OMPT literature includes detailed international screening frameworks for cervical spine interventions aimed at identifying vascular risk factors prior to manipulation (Rushton et al., 2023). Comparable globally standardized safety frameworks are less prominently documented within osteopathy literature, although risk screening is generally part of musculoskeletal assessment in both professions.
Overall, the results demonstrate substantial overlap in clinical outcomes between OMPT and osteopathy. Both approaches can produce modest short-term improvements in pain and disability for nonspecific musculoskeletal conditions. However, neither demonstrates clear superiority over the other when comparator strength is high and risk of bias is minimized. The magnitude of effect is generally small to moderate, and long-term outcomes appear more strongly influenced by exercise adherence, load progression, and psychosocial management than by manual techniques alone.
The comparative analysis of Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) and osteopathy reveals a substantial overlap in clinical practice and measurable outcomes, yet important distinctions emerge when examined through the lens of contemporary evidence-based healthcare. The central finding is not that one approach clearly outperforms the other, but rather that the clinical effectiveness of manual therapy appears to depend more on integration within active rehabilitation frameworks and methodological rigor than on professional identity.
Across musculoskeletal conditions such as nonspecific low back pain and neck pain, both OMPT-delivered manual therapy and osteopathic manipulative treatment demonstrate small-to-moderate short-term improvements in pain and disability. These findings are consistent with contemporary clinical practice guidelines, which position spinal manipulation and mobilization as optional components of conservative care rather than primary long-term solutions (Zhou et al., 2024; Blanpied et al., 2017). Importantly, effect sizes across both domains are generally modest, and differences between manual therapy and credible sham interventions are often reduced in high-quality trials (Ceballos-Laita et al., 2024). This suggests that contextual and non-specific treatment effects may contribute meaningfully to observed outcomes.
A key difference between OMPT and osteopathy lies in structural integration within rehabilitation models. OMPT is typically embedded within physiotherapy systems that emphasize graded exercise, load management, patient education, and biopsychosocial reasoning. Manual therapy is conceptualized primarily as a short-term symptom modulation strategy designed to facilitate active rehabilitation. Evidence supports this integration: when manual therapy is combined with structured exercise, short-term improvements may exceed exercise alone, though long-term outcomes converge (Narenthiran et al., 2025). In this sense, OMPT’s alignment with exercise-based rehabilitation appears strongly consistent with guideline-endorsed care pathways.
Osteopathy, depending on jurisdiction and training background, may demonstrate greater variability in how strongly exercise and self-management are emphasized. Some osteopathic care models are fully aligned with contemporary biopsychosocial frameworks, whereas others retain a stronger focus on hands- on intervention. Umbrella reviews suggest moderate evidence for osteopathic treatment in certain low back pain populations (Zipp et al., 2025), yet sham-controlled analyses temper claims of specific mechanistic superiority (Ceballos-Laita et al., 2024). This heterogeneity complicates generalized conclusions about osteopathy as a unified intervention model.
The question of specificity is particularly relevant. When osteopathic manipulative treatment fails to outperform sham interventions, it raises the possibility that a substantial portion of therapeutic benefit may derive from contextual factors such as patient expectation, therapeutic alliance, and tactile interaction rather than unique biomechanical corrections. However, this phenomenon is not exclusive to osteopathy; manual therapy trials within physiotherapy demonstrate similar challenges in isolating specific technique effects. Manual therapies inherently involve patient-clinician interaction, touch, and individualized attention, all of which can amplify non-specific therapeutic effects.
Safety governance also differentiates the two domains in practice, though not necessarily in clinical outcome. OMPT literature demonstrates extensive development of formalized cervical screening frameworks and risk stratification models (Rushton et al., 2023). These frameworks reflect increasing medico-legal accountability and emphasis on vascular risk assessment. While osteopathic practitioners may apply comparable screening principles, standardized international frameworks are more explicitly documented in OMPT contexts.
From a patient selection perspective, current evidence suggests that manual therapy—regardless of professional label—may be most appropriate in patients with acute or subacute nonspecific low back pain, neck pain with mobility deficits, or high pain sensitivity limiting movement engagement. In such cases, manual therapy can provide short-term symptom reduction that facilitates participation in exercise-based rehabilitation. However, repeated manual intervention without progression toward active selfmanagement is unlikely to produce superior long-term outcomes.
Another important consideration is sustainability. Long-term improvements in musculoskeletal disorders are consistently associated with exercise adherence, load tolerance, psychosocial adaptation, and
behavioral modification rather than passive interventions alone. The evidence therefore supports models in which manual therapy serves as a transitional or adjunctive strategy rather than a primary long-term treatment modality.
Methodological limitations across the literature must also be acknowledged. Direct head-to-head comparisons between OMPT and osteopathy are scarce. Intervention descriptions are often insufficiently detailed to distinguish technique philosophy from technique execution. Comparator strength varies widely, and blinding is inherently difficult in manual therapy research. These factors limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions about professional superiority.
In summary, contemporary evidence does not demonstrate a clear clinical advantage of OMPT over osteopathy or vice versa when evaluated purely on outcome measures. Differences appear more pronounced at the level of professional structure, educational governance, and integration within evidence-based rehabilitation systems. The decisive determinant of effectiveness seems to be not whether manual therapy is delivered under an OMPT or osteopathic label, but whether it is applied within a comprehensive, exercise-centered, and guideline-concordant treatment framework.
Conclusion
Current evidence does not demonstrate a clear clinical superiority of Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) over osteopathy, or vice versa, for common musculoskeletal conditions such as low back and neck pain. Both approaches produce small-to-moderate short-term improvements in pain and disability, with effect sizes generally modest and often reduced in sham-controlled designs.
The key determinant of effectiveness appears to be how manual therapy is integrated within broader rehabilitation frameworks. Sustained outcomes are more strongly associated with exercise, load progression, and self-management than with passive techniques alone.
Therefore, the distinction between OMPT and osteopathy is primarily structural and professional rather than outcome-based. Clinical benefit depends less on the therapeutic label and more on evidence-based integration within active, patient-centered care.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank colleagues and mentors from the physiotherapy community for their valuable discussions and insights that contributed to the development of this manuscript.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares no conflicts of interest related to this work. He is an independent physiotherapist and researcher and received no financial or material support for this study.
Funding Statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
1. Blanpied, P. R., Gross, A. R., Elliott, J. M., Devaney, L. L., Clewley, D., Walton, D. M., Sparks, C., & Robertson, E. K. (2017). Neck pain: Revision 2017 clinical practice guideline from the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 47(7), AI-A83. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2017.0302
2. Ceballos-Laita, L., Estébanez-de-Miguel, E., Fernández-de-las-Peñas, C., & Plaza-Manzano, G. (2024). Effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment versus sham therapy on pain and disability in neck and low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, I3(II), 287. https://doi.org/I0.3390/jcmI3II287
3. IFOMPT. (n.d.). Definition of orthopaedic manual physical therapy (OMPT). International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists. Retrieved from https://www.ifompt.org
4. Narenthiran, G., Kalinowski, P., & Smith, A. (2025). The effectiveness of adding manual therapy to exercise therapy for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice, 68, I02765. https://doi.org/I0.I0I6/j.msksp.2024.I02765
5. QAA. (2024). Subject benchmark statement: Osteopathy. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. https://www.qaa.ac.uk
6. Rushton, A., Rivett, D., Carlesso, L., Flynn, T., Hing, W., Kerry, R., & IFOMPT International Cervical Framework Group. (2023). International framework for examination of the cervical region for potential vascular pathologies of the neck prior to musculoskeletal intervention: International IFOMPT cervical framework. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 53(I), 7-2I. https://doi.org/I0.25I9/jospt.2022.II I47
7. Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., & Henry, D. A. (20I7). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358, j4008. https://doi.org/I0.II36/bmj.j4008
8. Sterne, J. A. C., Savovic, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., Hernán, M. A., Hopewell, S., Hróbjartsson, A., Junqueira, D. R., Jüni, P., Kirkham, J. J., Lasserson, T., Li, T., McAleenan, A., ... Higgins, J. P. T. (20I9). RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 366, l4898. https://doi.org/I0.II36/bmj.l4898
9. Zhou, K., Ma, Y., & Brogan, M. S. (2024). Recent clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain: A global comparison. BMJ Open, I4, e0743II. https://doi.org/I0.II36/bmjopen-2023-0743II
10. Zipp, T., Seffinger, M. A., & Licciardone, J. C. (2025). Effectiveness of osteopathic care for musculoskeletal pain: An umbrella review of systematic reviews. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice, 70, I028I2. https://doi.org/I0.I0I6/j.msksp.2025.I028I2
[...]
Buy now
- Quote paper
- Tobias Giesen (Author), 2026, Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy versus Osteopathy, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1702831
