Osteopathy and Wikipedia: What’s Accurate, What’s Missing, and Why It Matters

Darryl Jenkins
3 days ago
3 min read

If you’ve ever Googled osteopathy, chances are you’ve landed on the Wikipedia page. It’s one of the top search results, and for many people it’s their first introduction to what we do. But how well does it actually describe modern osteopathy?

The short answer: some of it’s right, some of it’s wrong, and a lot of it is missing.

As an osteopath working in New Zealand, I want to explain the difference between what you’ll read on Wikipedia and what actually happens in an osteopathic clinic today. And yes, I've tried to change the Wikipedia page but it's not as 'community' led as you'd think.

What Wikipedia Gets Right

To be fair, Wikipedia makes some good points:

History: It correctly explains the 19th-century origins of osteopathy and the difference between osteopathic physicians in the US (who are fully licensed doctors) and manual osteopaths elsewhere, like in NZ.
Controversial techniques: It highlights that certain methods like cranial and visceral osteopathy don’t have strong evidence behind them. That’s true — and something many osteopaths themselves are questioning. Some Osteo's, including myself, don't bother with them entirely.
Global variation: It points out that osteopathy looks different depending on the country. That’s an important distinction. NZ trained osteopaths are notably well qualified critical thinkers, most of the time.

So far, so good.

Where Wikipedia Falls Short

The problem is that Wikipedia paints the entire profession with one big judgemental brush, focusing on outdated ideas and ignoring how osteopathy has changed. Here are the big gaps:

It over-generalises osteopathy as “pseudoscience.” That’s an unfair blanket label. Like any health profession, osteopathy has areas with good evidence (for example, low back pain) and areas with weak evidence (non-musculoskeletal conditions). It’s patchy, not uniformly bad. We are a small profession that lacks the manpower and money to generate the research that other professions do. That's not a great excuse and as a profession there is a push to improve in this space, especially in NZ.
It treats old ideas as if they still define practice. Wikipedia leans heavily on 19th-century concepts like “osteopathic lesions.” In reality, most modern osteopaths use updated pain science, biomechanics, and patient education — not just structural theories. These updated ideas are well published and critically appraised across pain care in general.
It ignores the overlap with physiotherapy. Much of what osteopaths do today — joint mobilisation, soft tissue work, exercise rehabilitation — looks remarkably similar to physiotherapy. The real difference is often cultural or historical, not technical. Yet physiotherapy tends to enjoy what you might call a “rose-tinted-glasses” effect: when a physio uses a certain approach, it’s seen as evidence-based; when an osteopath uses the same method, it’s sometimes dismissed or labelled as “alternative.”
It misses the patient experience. One of the main reasons people choose osteopaths is because we often spend more time listening, explaining, and tailoring care. Patients consistently report feeling heard and supported. This is a huge part of why osteopathy remains popular and works — but Wikipedia doesn’t mention it.

Not Just an Osteopathy Issue

It’s also worth pointing out that these challenges aren’t unique to osteopathy.

Chiropractic has its own legacy issues with outdated concepts like “subluxations.”
Physiotherapy still uses techniques with weak evidence, such as certain manual therapies or taping methods or overly soft exercise and textbook approaches.

The difference is that osteopaths have often been more openly critical of themselves. Writers like Olive Thompson, in What’s Wrong With Osteopathy, highlight how the profession is reflecting on its past and working hard to evolve.

The Modern Osteopathic Approach

So what does osteopathy look like today?

Evidence-informed: We use what works for musculoskeletal pain — and we don’t over-claim about conditions where the evidence is poor.
Biopsychosocial: We treat the whole person, not just the sore area — considering stress, lifestyle, and beliefs as much as posture or muscle tension.
Multimodal: Manual therapy is part of care, but so are exercise, movement strategies, and education about how pain works.
Patient-centred: Above all, we listen. Your story, your goals, and your experience shape the treatment plan.

Final Thoughts

Wikipedia gives a snapshot of osteopathy’s history and controversies, but it doesn’t capture the reality of what happens in a modern osteopath’s room. The profession isn’t stuck in the 1800s — it’s evolving, questioning itself, and moving with the evidence.

If you’re curious about osteopathy, the best way to understand it isn’t by scrolling Wikipedia — it’s by walking through the clinic door and experiencing modern care for yourself.