Infant colic is a sensitive subject for chiropractors in the UK. In case you forgot, here is why. Consequently, the subject has featured regularly on this blog – and now there is new evidence:
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on infantile colic studies that used SO-CALLED alternative medicine (SCAM) techniques as interventions. The outcome measures were hours spent crying and/or sleeping. The authors used the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Osteopathic Medicine Digital Database, and Google Scholar databases from inception to 11 November 2022.
The methodological quality of the randomized control trials ranged from fair to high. The authors focused on five studies with 422 babies using the following interventions: cranial, visceral, or structural osteopathy or chiropractic manipulation or mobilization. These treatments failed to decrease the crying time (mean difference -1.08, 95% CI -2.17 to 0.01, I2 = 92%) and to increase the sleeping time (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.41; I2: 91%), compared with no intervention. The quality of the evidence was rated as very low for both outcome measures.The authors concluded that osteopathy and chiropractic treatment failed to reduce the crying time and increase sleeping time in babies with infantile colic, compared to no additional intervention.The 5 included studies were the following:
- Miller JE, Newell D, Bolton JE. Efficacy of chiropractic manual therapy on infant colic: A pragmatic single-blind, randomized controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012;35(8):600–7.
- Castejón-Castejón M, Murcia-González MA, Todri J, Lena O, Chillón-Martínez R. Treatment of infant colic with craniosacral therapy. A randomized controlled trial. Complement Ther Med. 2022;71(February 2021).
- Olafsdottir E, Forshei S, Fluge G, Markestad T. Randomised controlled trial of infantile colic treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation. Arch Dis Child. 2001;84(2):138–41.
- Holm LV, Jarbøl DE, Christensen HW, Søndergaard J, Hestbæk L. The effect of chiropractic care on infantile colic: results from a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Chiropr Man Ther. 2021;29(1):1–11.
- Hayden C, Mullinger B. A preliminary assessment of the impact of cranial osteopathy for the relief of infantile colic. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2006;12(2):83–90.
This means that, in recent years, several new studies have emerged. I find this surprising: there is no plausible mechanism of action and the previous reviews were negative.
Why flog a dead horse?
But – come to think of it – this is a question one might ask about most of the research into cranial, visceral, or structural osteopathy or chiropractic manipulation or mobilization.
7 Responses to Chiropractic or osteopathy for infant colic? … No, thanks!
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
To answer your rhetorical question , because although the horse is most definitely dead the bank accounts of parents are most definitely alive.
“The quality of the evidence was rated as very low for both outcome measures.”
It seems we don’t know.
you perhaps don’t know, we do know, however, that implausible and not evidence-based treatments should be avoided.
Of course, chiropraxis is B.S. worldwide.
But it’s important to emphasize that osteopathy in the U.S. & Canada is now largely indistinguishable from mainstream medicine although, as Stephen Barrett, M.D. points out a few loose ends persist.
Dr. Barrett’s reasoning is too long to quote here so a perusal of his remarks is recommended. https://quackwatch.org/consumer-education/qa/osteo/
I think people on this blog know this well by now because I have pointed it out ad nauseam
You seem to have an inordinately short memory:
https://edzardernst.com/2023/03/the-little-extras-that-make-ineffective-treatments-appear-to-be-effective/#comment-145060
This research aligns with the global summit paper that saw a large number of chiropractic researchers come together to look at the evidence for efficacy for non MSK. This review was mentioned in this paper and I was a contributing author. Notwithstanding the fact that present evidence for non MSK conditions is lacking it is not the case that manipulation or mobilisation by chiropractors or osteopaths has has not been shown to be efficacious for MSK conditions ( LBP, Neck pain, shoulder pain etc ). So your closing statement “But – come to think of it – this is a question one might ask about most of the research into cranial, visceral, or structural osteopathy or chiropractic manipulation or mobilization” is both inaccurate and disingenuous in its generality about these interventions and should have confined its focus to the evidence you are discussing ie non MSK conditions, rather than implying over all that manipulation and mobilisation are ineffective. Such evidence can be simply found by interrogating any number of national and international clinical guidelines. But I think you know that Edzard. Given that your contribution to the area has indeed been one that has incentivised these professions to produce more and better quality research, it is a shame that you continue to misrepresent the evidence, when you could be far more balanced.