Introduction: Athletes often experience maladaptive changes in performance and range of
motion (ROM) due to injury or training demands, with contributing factors such as level of play,
game load, and travel. Current conventional sports medicine strategies to maintain or improve
performance and ROM vary widely and may or may not include osteopathic manipulation
techniques (OMT). Evidence supports OMTs effectiveness in optimizing ROM and performance.
Integrating it into training and return-to-play protocols could reduce injuries, shorten recovery
time, and improve overall performance across the competitive and non-competitive season.
Purpose: Investigate the efficacy of OMT to improve athletic performance and recovery in college athletes. We aim to evaluate whether OMT can improve sports performance and recovery to potentially serve as an adjunct to conventional sports medicine treatments.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using PubMed and Clinicalkey. Search terms included “osteopathic manipulative medicine,” “muscle energy,” “high-velocity low-amplitude,” “counterstrain,” “sports recovery,” “sports performance,” and related MeSH terms. Peer-reviewed studies published within the last 20 years evaluating high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA), strain-counterstrain (SCS), or muscle energy technique (MET) in athletic or musculoskeletal populations were included. Non-athlete populations, non-OMT interventions, and non-peer-reviewed articles were excluded. Data were extracted on study design, population, intervention, and outcomes related to performance, pain and recovery.
Results: A total of 18 studies met inclusion criteria. SCS (n = 5) consistently reduced palpation pain, with 3 reporting significant improvements in ROM and functional recovery in athletes with chronic musculoskeletal dysfunction. MET (n = 6) demonstrated clinically meaningful gains in ROM, particularly in the shoulder, and reductions in low back and lateral elbow pain; 2 studies also noted improved grip and finger strength, especially when combined with adjunctive modalities. HVLA (n = 7) yielded short-term enhancements in sprint speed, vertical jump distance, and throwing velocity/accuracy, with 4 studies highlighting greater benefit in symptomatic athletes. These findings suggest that OMT may offer measurable improvements in recovery and selected performance outcomes, supporting its role as a potential adjunctive therapy in collegiate sports medicine.
Contribution: OMT demonstrates promise as an effective adjunctive therapy with potential to improve athletic recovery and select performance outcomes, though current evidence is limited by small sample sizes and inconsistent findings. To build on this work, we aim to conduct a longitudinal study with collegiate athletes in Billings, Montana by incorporating multiple treatment modalities and contributing stronger evidence for OMT’s role as an adjunctive therapy in collegiate sports medicine.
Purpose: Investigate the efficacy of OMT to improve athletic performance and recovery in college athletes. We aim to evaluate whether OMT can improve sports performance and recovery to potentially serve as an adjunct to conventional sports medicine treatments.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using PubMed and Clinicalkey. Search terms included “osteopathic manipulative medicine,” “muscle energy,” “high-velocity low-amplitude,” “counterstrain,” “sports recovery,” “sports performance,” and related MeSH terms. Peer-reviewed studies published within the last 20 years evaluating high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA), strain-counterstrain (SCS), or muscle energy technique (MET) in athletic or musculoskeletal populations were included. Non-athlete populations, non-OMT interventions, and non-peer-reviewed articles were excluded. Data were extracted on study design, population, intervention, and outcomes related to performance, pain and recovery.
Results: A total of 18 studies met inclusion criteria. SCS (n = 5) consistently reduced palpation pain, with 3 reporting significant improvements in ROM and functional recovery in athletes with chronic musculoskeletal dysfunction. MET (n = 6) demonstrated clinically meaningful gains in ROM, particularly in the shoulder, and reductions in low back and lateral elbow pain; 2 studies also noted improved grip and finger strength, especially when combined with adjunctive modalities. HVLA (n = 7) yielded short-term enhancements in sprint speed, vertical jump distance, and throwing velocity/accuracy, with 4 studies highlighting greater benefit in symptomatic athletes. These findings suggest that OMT may offer measurable improvements in recovery and selected performance outcomes, supporting its role as a potential adjunctive therapy in collegiate sports medicine.
Contribution: OMT demonstrates promise as an effective adjunctive therapy with potential to improve athletic recovery and select performance outcomes, though current evidence is limited by small sample sizes and inconsistent findings. To build on this work, we aim to conduct a longitudinal study with collegiate athletes in Billings, Montana by incorporating multiple treatment modalities and contributing stronger evidence for OMT’s role as an adjunctive therapy in collegiate sports medicine.