Talk:Osteopathy

The sentence in the lead, "People practicing osteopathy are referred to as osteopathic practitioners" is inaccurate and contradicts two of the cited sources (the link to the third source appears to be dead). Non-physician, manipulation-only practitioners of osteopathy are referred to as osteopaths. Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine are referred to as osteopathic physicians. This is stated in the sources as well as the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's website (http://www.aacom.org/become-a-doctor/about-om/US-vs-abroad). Both call themselves "DO's". In the United States, osteopaths are prohibited from referring to themselves as "DO's" to avoid being confused with osteopathic physicians.SympatheticResonance (talk)

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Osteopathy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has way too paragraphs without citations and too many maintenance tags, so I have to quickfail it. Medical articles have higher standards than other articles. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please update with current information about American Osteopathic Medicine which is becoming quite widespread and mainstream in modern medicine. Most American osteopaths practice in primary care positions such as family and internal medicine directly alongside and in practices with allopaths equally. One in 4 medical school graduates are osteopathic physicians. Here is more information from the American osteopathic association. https://osteopathic.org/what-is-osteopathic-medicine/ Mjreillydo (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Already covered at Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Current article: New Zealand In New Zealand a course is offered at the Unitec Institute of Technology (Unitec). Australasian courses consist of a bachelor's degree in clinical science (osteopathy) followed by a master's degree. The Unitec double degree programme is the OCNZ prescribed qualification for registration in the scope of practice: Australian qualifications accredited by the Australian and New Zealand Osteopathic Council are also prescribed qualifications.

Correction: In New Zealand a course is offered at Ara Institute of Canterbury. The Bachelor of Musculoskeletal Health https://www.ara.ac.nz/products/programme/ch4063-stru-bachelor-of-musculoskeletal-health/) and the Postgraduate Diploma in Osteopathy (https://www.ara.ac.nz/products/programme/ch4064-stru-postgraduate-diploma-in-osteopathy/) programmes is the OCNZ prescribed qualification for registration in the scope of practice: Australian qualifications accredited by the Australian and New Zealand Osteopathic Council are also prescribed qualifications.

Osteopaths are health practitioners working under the Ministry of Health (https://www.health.govt.nz/regulation-legislation/health-practitioners/responsible-authorities). Osteopaths are Accident Compensation Corporation providers (https://www.acc.co.nz/im-injured/what-we-cover/treatment-we-pay-for). Osteopaths New Zealand (ONZ) https://osteopathsnz.co.nz/ represents osteopaths in New Zealand. ONZ is a member of Allied Health Aotearoa New Zealand (https://www.alliedhealth.org.nz/). JustineGu (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Does your proposed change really belong on this page, or at Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Good question. I would think the latter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

When will the article be corrected please? JustineGu (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to respond to the comments above. Have you looked at the other article? We have TWO very different articles on the topic of osteopathy. Are you in the right place? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This page states that Osteopathy is a pseudoscience and is an alternative medicine, implying that there is not scientific credibility or validity in OMM as a treatment model. The citation that is used is the 4th citation from Quackwatch that when clicking on the link brings the user to a page that defines "quackery" and does not provide any scientific information proving that Osteopathy is a pseudoscience. This article then goes on to state, "An osteopathic physician in the United States is a physician trained in the full scope of medical practice, with a degree of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO)." It seems dubious to claim that OMM is a pseudoscience but then to acknowledge that Doctors of Osteopathic medicine have been conferred all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities to that of a Doctor of Allopathy, MD. It defies all science and reason to believe that the manipulation of ones joints and muscles does not aid in the restoration of their normal function. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9143587/ 2601:80:C87E:A1C0:F4EB:8A77:8DFC:7A78 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Doctor of osteopathic medicine is a different topic. They are pretty much normal doctors but with a bit of embarrassing quackery (i.e. osteopathy) mixed in with their training, largely for historical reasons. Meanwhile in many countries "osteopaths" (who anyone can be on their own say-so) are quintessential quacks at large. Bon courage (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Osteopaths aren’t self-identifying it’s a title. 82.152.216.54 (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This is correct. This article is very biased and needs correction. I’m not sure why non osteopathic physicians and non osteopaths can manage how this page presents when they haven’t even cared to review the literature. Here are two meta reviews on safety and efficacy. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12097846/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360859225000993 Drryanc (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the word “pseudoscience / pseudoscientific” from the description of osteopathy as this is not accurate. In the UK osteopathy is an Allied Health Profession (not an alternative / complementary profession) based on a bio-psycho—social model of health and illness and is evidence based as outlined in its regulatory guidelines. All osteopaths have a masters level degree focused on diagnosing and treating musculoskeletal issues. Claims of pseudoscience are outdated. 82.152.216.54 (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

2025 Meta review on the topic of safety and efficacy of osteopathic medicine. The evidence is moderate quality but not “pesudoscientific”. This causes harm to emerging science in anatomy and physiology. Medicine can’t explain many things and this is not what Wikipedia is about- bias is tempered with discussion and as a physician osteopath this article feels very biased. Here is the review for your inclusion. Sincerely, ryan christensen do https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360859225000993 Drryanc (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Efficacy of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment in Creating a Difference in Pain Levels for Patients With Localized Joint Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12097846/

please allow this thread to become a place where we can share emerging evidence on osteopathy and osteopathic manipulative treatment (omt) within our community. Sincerely, Ryan Christensen DO Drryanc (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

More citations for your review.

Osteopathic Manipulation in the Management of Chronic Pain. J Pain Res. 2020 Jul 20;13:1839–1847. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S183170 - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7381089/

https://oce.ovid.com/article/00132114-201804000-00015/PDF

https://oce.ovid.com/article/00132114-201804000-00015/PDF

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229920318835

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/4/e053468

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25847552/

https://www.cureus.com/articles/105415-osteopathic-manipulative-treatment-and-the-management-of-headaches-a-scoping-review#!/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28352200/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229924000311

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/12/13/1353#:~:text=In%20conclusion%2C%20OMT%20seems%20to%20have%20a%20role%20in%20promoting,approach%20appears%20to%20be%20better.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27653920/

https://jom.osteopathic.org/abstract/impact-of-osteopathic-manipulative-techniques-on-the-management-of-dizziness-caused-by-neuro-otologic-disorders-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00403/full

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60253-6

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pmrj.12732

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9054945/

most are the highest quality types of research conducted; meta-analyses and systematic reviews. I would hesitate referencing studies that aren't meta-analyses of systematic reviews when discussing the efficacy for an entire field of medicine.

Osteopathic manipulation, performed by both an osteopathic physician or an osteopath, has been shown to be effective for many conditions. This article needs to reflect that, rather than this outdated notion from before the 1960s that osteopathic manipulative treatments are not effective. The research begs to differ.

Most drugs and/or surgeries also have many studies that show no difference from placebo or standard treatment, but we don't call them quackery. Why do they still qualify as medicine? The article makes brief mention of osteopathic physicians who do actually perform osteopathic manual treatments (OMT). These osteopathic manual treatments are evidence based medicine. This heading needs to be changed and the body needs to reflect this difference. This is not quackery, evidence demonstrates it, and this article is harming the osteopathic profession for individuals who do not know the effectiveness of OMT yet, because they will likely shy away from it. Please edit the bias existing in this article to allow for thoughtful scholarship and scholarly inquiry. Drryanc (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

A shopping list there, including some junk journals. But for pseudoscience we need sources which specifically consider that aspect (i.e. using that exact word). For questions of efficacy, yes, WP:MEDRS are necessary. Bon courage (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. What I think should be changed (include citations): Osteopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy#cite_note-SBM-1 Why it should be changed: I am submitting a formal request for immediate review and correction of the wording on the Osteopathy page, specifically the classification of osteopathy as “pseudoscientific.” In its current form, the article appears to violate multiple core Wikipedia policies, including: WP (Neutral Point of View) WP (Undue Weight) WP (High-quality medical sourcing requirements) WP (Avoiding systemic bias) 1. Violation of NPOV and UNDUE The label “pseudoscience” is presented as a definitive, universal statement, without reflecting the global regulatory reality. This creates a misleading and factually distorted impression. Osteopathy is: fully integrated into national medical systems in several countries, statutorily regulated in the UK and multiple Commonwealth nations, and supported by a body of peer-reviewed research on manual therapy effectiveness. Presenting osteopathy as uniformly “pseudoscientific” is inaccurate and gives disproportionate weight to a single viewpoint, while excluding key international evidence. 2. Failure to Represent Global Regulatory Status The article currently ignores or minimizes the following facts: United States: Osteopathic physicians (DOs) are fully licensed medical doctors with unrestricted practice rights. United Kingdom: Osteopathy is regulated under statutory law through the General Osteopathic Council. Australia, New Zealand, EU regions: Osteopaths are government-registered primary healthcare professionals. An article cannot ethically or policy-compliantly use a single-label classification that contradicts the legal and medical frameworks of multiple nations. 3. MEDRS Concerns The “pseudoscience” claim relies on selective, outdated, or context-inappropriate sources, which do not meet the strict standards for medical content. More recent systematic reviews and high-quality evidence are omitted or downplayed, which again violates WP and WP. 4. Requested Action I request that editors remove or revise this terminology and replace it with policy-compliant, neutral wording that reflects the actual scientific landscape. Suggested alternatives: “Evidence for osteopathic interventions varies by technique and by condition, and scientific debate continues.” “Regulatory recognition and clinical integration differ internationally, and research outcomes are mixed.” ~2025-35396-33 (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC) While I'm in general agreement on the facts stated here (which means precisely nothing, however my own GP here in the US is a DO, as are many within the Kaiser Permanente network), the above appears to be AI generated, and on those grounds alone this edit should probably be removed (including mine) - but I'm not sure precisely what the remedies are in this situation. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

No sources provided. See above. Ixocactus (talk)

I am requesting reconsideration of the blanket classification of osteopathy as "pseudoscientific." I declare that I am an osteopathic researcher, which gives me both relevant expertise and a potential conflict of interest.

Issue with current wording:

The current lead presents osteopathy as universally pseudoscientific, which does not reflect: 1. Statutory regulation in multiple jurisdictions (US, UK, Australia, NZ) 2. Integration into national health systems 3. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses showing efficacy for specific conditions

Not requesting removal of criticism:

I am NOT suggesting we remove critical perspectives. Wikipedia should reflect that osteopathy is controversial and has historical pseudoscientific elements.

Proposed neutral wording:

Instead of "pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine," consider: "Osteopathy is a system of manual therapy that is regulated as a healthcare profession in some countries but remains controversial, with critics characterising some of its theoretical foundations as pseudoscientific."

Sources Meeting WP:MEDRS

[List 3-4 of the strongest systematic reviews/meta-analyses from the document]

Request:

Can we discuss more neutral wording that: - Acknowledges regulatory recognition where it exists - Notes the ongoing scientific debate - Includes criticism appropriately - Meets NPOV requirements for representing diverse reliable sources JerryDraperRodi (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we've got it pretty correct ATM, and I dont believe your suggestions will fly. - Walter Ego 15:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Walter Ego, thanks for responding. However, "I think we've got it pretty correct" and "your suggestions won't fly" aren't policy-based arguments - they're opinions about outcomes. I'm raising specific concerns about Wikipedia policy compliance that need to be addressed substantively.

The core issues are:

1. NPOV violation: The current wording presents one perspective (that osteopathy is pseudoscientific) as definitive fact, while marginalising that it's statutorily regulated as a healthcare profession by government health authorities in the USA, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. WP:NPOV requires we present significant viewpoints proportionately.

2. UNDUE weight: We're giving primary weight to sources like Quackwatch whilst minimising recent systematic reviews meeting WP:MEDRS standards. The evidence base has evolved considerably since earlier consensus was formed.

3. Internal contradiction: The article simultaneously calls osteopathy "pseudoscientific" whilst acknowledging it's regulated by the General Osteopathic Council under UK statute, practitioners require Master's degrees, and it's recognised within national health systems. This is logically inconsistent.

I'm not asking us to remove criticism or ignore that aspects of osteopathic theory are controversial. I'm asking that we accurately represent the current regulatory and research landscape whilst maintaining appropriate criticism.

Can you explain specifically which Wikipedia policies support maintaining wording that contradicts the regulatory status in multiple jurisdictions? Or are you simply saying the current editing community prefers the status quo regardless of policy concerns? JerryDraperRodi (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)