Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter November 10, 2022

Palpatory tests in manual therapies: an international survey on osteopathic clinical practice

  • Emanuele Novelli EMAIL logo , Livio Molinari , Stefano Consolo and Luca Mingrone

Abstract

Objectives

The primary aim of the study is to explore the knowledge and use of palpatory tests in detecting somatic dysfunction, the second is to assess the knowledge about the inhibitory tests among osteopathic practitioners in Italy, England, and France.

Methods

A quantitative survey was conducted, between March and May 2021, through the administration of a semi-structured questionnaire. The participants had to answer 8 questions.

Results

A total of 2,223 e-mails were sent: 423 manual therapy professionals participated in the survey. Subsequently, only the responses of the 385 osteopaths (280 Italian, 23 French and 82 British) were included in the data processing; the 38 excluded were physiotherapists and chiropractors. The most significative outcomes for the total sample were found to: years of working experience and knowledge of a palpatory test that allows to discriminate two dysfunctional anatomical structures was significant with a χ2=12.509 (p-value <0.006); 68.5% answered in the affirmative to this last question. It was found that less work experience is associated with knowledge of a palpatory test to discriminate two dysfunctional structures. The correlation between years of work experience and knowledge of the inhibitory test was explored with the result being statistically significant (p-value <0.001). 64.4% know and use the inhibitory test. 39.1% base the inhibitory test on tissue change.

Conclusions

The clinical practice of Italian and French professionals, makes possible to establish the hierarchy between two somatic dysfunctions with respect to English sample. The osteopaths reported a wider use of the tissue change parameters rather than pain reported by the patient. Furthermore, more than half of the sample-based their discriminatory test on the musculoskeletal and fascial systems. There is a vast knowledge of the inhibition test among osteopaths.


Corresponding author: Emanuele Novelli, DO, BSc, Centre pour l’Etude, la Recherche et la Diffusion Osteopatiques, Department of research, Rome, Italy, Phone: +393495387885, E-mail:

  1. Research funding: None declared.

  2. Author contributions: Emanuele Novelli: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing- original draft. Livio Molinari: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing- original draft. Stefano Consolo: Data analyst, Data curation, Formal analysis. Luca Mingrone: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing- original draft.

  3. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study, by means of the google form questionnaire.

  5. Ethical approval: Not applicable.

Appendix A: Survey questions

  1. Work activity (1).

  2. Years of working experience (2).

  3. Knowledge of a palpation test that allows to discriminate two dysfunctional anatomical structures (3).

  4. The name of the test used (4).

    The physiological parameters on which the test acts (5).

  5. Knowledge of the inhibitory test (6).

  6. In what context was the inhibitory test learned (7).

  7. Which parameters are used for the use of the inhibitory test (8).

References

1. Tramontano, M, Tamburella, F, Dal Farra, F, Bergna, A, Lunghi, C, Innocenti, M, et al.. International overview of somatic dysfunction assessment and treatment in osteopathic research: a scoping review. Healthcare 2022;10:28. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10010028.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

2. Glossary of osteopathic terminology. Drafted by Educational Council on Osteopathic Principles (ECOP) and American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM). Available from: https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/insideome/got2011ed.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

3. UK Parliament Acts/O/OO-OT/Osteopaths Act 1993 (1993 c 21).Search in Google Scholar

4. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000031549014.Search in Google Scholar

5. Available from: http://www.statoregioni.it/it/conferenza-stato-regioni/sedute-2020/seduta- del-05112020/atti/repertorio-atto-n-185csr/.Search in Google Scholar

6. Available from: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2018/1/31/18G00019/sg.Search in Google Scholar

7. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (ICD-10) (M99.0–M99.9). Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/manuals/2022/2e_volume1_2022.htm.Search in Google Scholar

8. Fryer, G. Somatic dysfunction: an osteopathic conundrum. Int J Osteopath Med 2016;22:52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2016.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

9. Seffinger, MA, Najm, WI, Mishra, SI, Adams, A, Dickerson, VM, Murphy, LS, et al.. Reliability of spinal palpation for diagnosis of back and neck pain: a systematic review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa) 2004;29:E413–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000141178.98157.8e.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Bartsch, KM, Schleip, R, Zullo, A, Hoppe, K, Klingler, W. The stiffness comparison test: a pilot study to determine inter-individual differences in palpatory skill related to gender, age, and occupation-related experience. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2020;24:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.06.009.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Seffinger, MA. Provocation tests have the greatest reliability for palpatory diagnosis. J Osteopath Med 2006;106:119. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2006.106.3.119.Search in Google Scholar

12. Liebenson, C, Lewit, K. Reliability: a question of science vs. art? J Bodyw Mov Ther 2003;7:46–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1360-8592(02)00106-7.Search in Google Scholar

13. Degenhardt, BF, Johnson, JC, Snider, KT, Snider, EJ. Maintenance and improvement of interobserver reliability of osteopathic palpatory tests over a 4-month period. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2010;110:579–86.Search in Google Scholar

14. Basile, F, Scionti, R, Petracca, M. Diagnostic reliability of osteopathic tests: a systematic review. Int J Osteopath Med 2017;25:21–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2017.03.004.Search in Google Scholar

15. Patijn, J. FIMM Scientific Committee. Reproducibility and validity studies of diagnostic procedures in manual/musculoskeletal medicine: protocol formats, 3rd ed: International Federation for Manual/Musculoskeletal Medicine; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355297X.2002.11736340.Search in Google Scholar

16. Esteves, JE, Spence, C. Developing competence in diagnostic palpation: perspectives from neuroscience and education. Int J Osteopath Med 2014;17:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2013.07.001.Search in Google Scholar

17. Bicalho, E, Vieira, L, Makita, DK, Rivas, L. Inhibitory tests as assessment tools for somatic dysfunctions: mechanisms and practical applications. Cureus 2020;12:e7700. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7700.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

18. Lunghi, C, Hruby, RJ. Osteopathy: a practice based on tradition, research, critical thinking, and art. In: Tozzi, P, Lunghi, C, Fusco, G, editors. The five osteopathic models: from an evidence-based to a person-centered osteopathy. Scotland: Handspring; 2017.Search in Google Scholar

19. Sharma, A, Duc, NTM, Thang, TLL, Nam, NH, Ng, SJ, Abas, KS, . A consensus-based checklist for reporting of survey studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med 2021;36:3179–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. Ribeiro, RP, Guerrero, FG, Camargo, EN, Pivotto, LR, Aimi, MA, Loss, JF, et al.. Construct validity and reliability of tests for sacroiliac dysfunction: standing flexion test (STFT) and sitting flexion test (SIFT). J Osteopath Med 2021;121:849–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2021-0025.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Shambaugh, P, Sclafani, L, Fanselow, D. Reliability of the derifield-thompson test for leg length inequality, and use of the test to demonstrate cervical adjusting efficacy. J Manip Physiol Ther 1988;11:396–9.Search in Google Scholar

22. Mueller, SM, Bernigau, D, Muelling, C, Grunwald, M. Does studying veterinary medicine improve students’ haptic perception ability? A pilot study with two age-groups. J Vet Med Educ 2019;46:408–14. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0417-051r.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Kmita, A, Lucas, N. Reliability of physical examination to assess asymmetry of anatomical landmarks indicative of pelvic somatic dysfunction in subjects with and without low back pain. Int J Osteopath Med 2008;11:16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2008.01.003.Search in Google Scholar

24. Shaw, KA, Dougherty, JJ, Treffer, KD, Glaros, AG. Establishing the content validity of palpatory examination for the assessment of the lumbar spine using ultrasonography: a pilot study. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2012;112:775–82. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2012.112.12.775. Erratum in: J Am Osteopath Assoc 2013;113:449.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Woźnicka, E, Niebudek-Bogusz, E, Morawska, J, Wiktorowicz, J, Śliwińska- Kowalska, M. Laryngeal manual therapy palpatory evaluation scale: a preliminary study to examine its usefulness in diagnosis of occupational dysphonia. Med Pr 2017;68:179–88. https://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.00463.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Cronbach, LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.Search in Google Scholar

27. Licciardone, JC, Kearns, CM, King, HH, Seffinger, MA, Crow, WT, Zajac, P, et al.. Somatic dysfunction and use of osteopathic manual treatment techniques during ambulatory medical care visits: a CONCORD-PBRN study. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2014;114:344–54. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2014.072.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Najm, WI, Seffinger, MA, Mishra, SI, Dickerson, VM, Adams, A, Reinsch, S, . Content validity of manual spinal palpatory exams – a systematic review. BMC Compl Alternative Med 2003;3:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-3-1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

29. Sepehri, DS, McCaffrey, K, Burns, JM, Glover, JC. Osteopathic survey of somatic dysfunction and Zink compensatory patterns in Sololá, Guatemala. In: SOMA; 2010, vol 110:25 p.Search in Google Scholar

30. Zink, JG. Applications of the osteopathic holistic approach to homeostasis. In: 1973 Year Book. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Osteopathy; 1973:37–45 pp.Search in Google Scholar

31. Zink, JG, Lawson, WB. An osteopathic structural examination and functional interpretation of the soma. Osteopath Ann 1979;7:12–9.Search in Google Scholar

32. Pope, R. The common compensatory pattern: its origin and relationship to the postural model. Amer Acad Osteopath J 2003;13:19–40.Search in Google Scholar

33. Sanchez, J, Brohard, J, Thai, R. An exploration of Zink3s common compensatory pattern: comparing myofascial restrictions to segmental spinal somatic dysfunctions: a retrospective study 2018.10.53702/2375-5717-28.4.16Search in Google Scholar

34. Schneider, M, Erhard, R, Brach, J, Tellin, W, Imbarlina, F, Delitto, A. Spinal palpation for lumbar segmental mobility and pain provocation: an interexaminer reliability study. J Manip Physiol Ther 2008;31:465–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.06.004.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2022-04-27
Accepted: 2022-10-10
Published Online: 2022-11-10

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 26.2.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jcim-2022-0180/html
Scroll to top button