Ist kraniale Osteopathie zuverlässig und wirksam?

Guillaud A, Darbois N, Monvoisin R et al. Reliability of Diagnosis and Clinical Efficacy of Cranial Osteopathy: A Systematic Review. PLoS One 2016; 11 (12): e0167823. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167823.

• Literatur

• 1 Lucas N. et al. The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). http://www.bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-13-111 (Stand: 10.8.20)
• 2 Lucas N. et al. The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010; 63: 854-861 www.researchgate.net/publication/40894364_The_development_of_a_quality_tool_for_studies_of_diagnostic_reliability_QAREL (Stand: 10.8.20)
• 3 Upledger J. CranioSacral Therapy vs. Cranial Osteopathy: Differences Divide. http://www.massagetoday.com/articles/10571/CranioSacral-Therapy-vs-Cranial-Osteopathy-Differences-Divide (Stand: 10.8.20)
• 4 Upledger L. CranioSacral Therapy. http://www.upledger.com/docs/cst-working-with-the-bodys-self-correcting-mechanisms.pdf (Stand: 10.8.20)
• 5 Buchberger B. et al. Bewertung des Risikos für Bias in kontrollierten Studien. http://www.link.springer.com/content/pdf/%3cDOI%3e10.1007/s00103-014-2065.pdf%3c/DOI%3e (Stand: 10.8.20)
• 6 Liberati A. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2700 (Stand: 10.8.20)
• 7 Checkliste zum Bericht einer systematischen Übersicht oder einer Meta-Analyse. http://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA German checklist.pdf (Stand: 10.8.20)
• 8 van Dune P, Wagner C. Richtige Kommunikation in unserem Beruf. DO 2020; 3: 40-43