Advanced search

Search results      

Is osteopathic manipulative treatment effective in migraine?
Cerritelli, F. [70]
Caprari, E. [3]
Di Vincenzo, M. [3]
Ginevri, L. R. [1]
Messi, G. [3]
Renzetti, C. [14]
Cozzolino, V. [18]
Frattesi, C. [1]
Barlafante, G. [20]
Foschi, N. [3]

Journal: International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Date: 2013/03, 16(1):Pages: e1-e2. doi: Subito , type of study: randomized controlled trial

Full text    (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746068913000023)

Keywords:

migraine [57]
headache [127]
osteopathic manipulative treatment [2973]
OMT [2951]
randomized controlled trial [710]

Abstract:

Background Migraine is a common disorder with a prevalence in the population of 6% in men and 18% in women. Recent studies documented controversial results in relation to the benefit of the application of OMT in migraine and those are even more unclear if CAM are considered. The aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy of the OMT on a sample of subjects affected by migraine evaluated using the HIT-6 questionnaire. Methods The study was carried out in the Department of Neurology of Ancona's United Hospitals in the period between March and November 2010. All patients admitted in the unit with a diagnosis of migraine, according with International Headache Society criteria, were considered eligible for the study. Patients with secondary forms of headache, chronic illness, psychiatric illness, post-menopausal women, aged under 18 and over 50 years old were excluded from the study. According to the sample size calculation using an effect size of 5 points between groups and 27 within groups with a power of 90% and an alpha equal to 0.05, 105 patients entered in the study and were randomly divided in three groups (N = 35 in each group): OMT only, drugs (triptans) only and sham therapy. All patients were followed up for 6 months. Questionnaires were used to evaluate both the severity of migraine (HIT-6), considered as primary outcome, and the quality of life (SF-36v2), secondary outcome. Socio-demographic data were collected as well. One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference in variance among the three groups having defined a level of significant less than 0.05. Results At baseline, no differences between the three groups in term of socio-demographic characteristics, severity of migraine and quality of life. At the end of the follow-up ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference on the primary outcome between the three groups F(2, 29) = 7.01; p = 0.003. Tukey post-hoc comparisons of the three groups indicate that sham group was not statistically different from drug group (M = −4.25; 95% CI: −11.80, 3.30; p = 0.36), whilst OMT group was statistically different from drug group (M = −11.70; 95% CI: −19.72, −3.69; p = 0.003); and from sham group (M = −7.45; 95% CI: −14.30, −0.61; p = 0.03). Results The present study showed a significant difference between OMT group compared to drug and sham therapy groups, suggesting that OMT can be considered a valid procedure for the management of patients with migraine.

Search results      

 
 
 






  • Impressum • Legal notice • Datenschutz •


ostlib.de/data_vcjsbxekudqmhrgtzfpy



Supported by

OSTLIB recommends