In my previous editorial,
1 I noted that from 1978 to 2016, fewer than 15 original articles presenting evidence-based outcomes demonstrating distinguishing characteristics, uniqueness, and/or distinctiveness of the osteopathic medical profession were published in the
JAOA. In reviewing similar original research articles published in 2017, there were 6 that met these criteria.
2,3,15-18 Of these 6 articles, 2 were brief communications from Italian researchers,
15,17 1 focused on the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination-USA,
16 and 2 were part of the original GROUPIE articles.
2,3 I had posited that if each COM proposed even 1 unique measureable prospective outcome representing an overall public good, the number of distinctive osteopathic articles would grow substantially. As a result, the cumulative influx of manuscripts detailing the overall public good from the osteopathic medical profession could then collectively further refine and delineate an evidence base to help direct a strategic path to start the next 125 years of osteopathic medicine. To requote a 2009 statement from Chen and Mullan:
19 The structure of today's osteopathic medical schools may be hard to distinguish from that of their allopathic counterparts, but the output of osteopathic medical schools remains clearly distinctive, and the nation's healthcare system benefits as a result.
Although 9 years have passed since that statement was published, the need for our COMs and the osteopathic medical profession to remain clearly distinctive still resonates and may be more relevant than ever.