This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This documentation needs attention from an expert in Alternative medicine. The specific problem is: The article's lede did not seem to accurately summarize what was written in the sources. See the
talk page for details. (May 2017) |
This Article presents nothing but hypotheses / suppositions-- and those are not adequately explored. I think Freud did a better job of obfuscating; he fooled a number of people for a number of years.
Science has a history of over-representation of results and folly; And *sciences* relating to human health are probably the worst offenders.
In contrast, the endeavor known as engineering can usually demonstrate its achievements. Mousetraps work; so do A-bombs. TheLordSayeth ( talk) 14:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
What the sources actually say.
There are three sources in this article that appear to brush close to the standards required by wp:medrs this is what they say
It concludes: Manual lymphatic drainage techniques remain a clinical art founded upon hypotheses, theory, and preliminary evidence. Researchers must strive to clarify the biophysical effects that underpin its various proposed therapeutic applications in the human organism. Randomized controlled trials and longitudinal prospective cohort studies are required to establish the efficacy of MLDTs in producing positive outcomes for patients rehabilitating from sports-related injuries.
It concludes: Some evidence suggests that treatment involving a combination of compression therapy and manual lymph drainage yields reduced edema volume compared to compression therapy alone if volume is measured directly after the conclusion of manual lymph drainage (Evidence grade 3)*. There is no evidence to show that this effect is permanent. Further randomized controlled trials of sufficient size should be conducted – where treatment effects could be studied more closely in both the short and long term – before a combination of compression therapy and manual lymph drainage can be recommended.
It concludes: In conclusion, our meta-analysis indicated that the addition of MLD to compression and exercise therapy for the treatment of lymphedema after axillary lymph-node dissection for breast cancer is unlikely to produce a significant reduction in the volume of the affected arm. We found no significant difference in the incidence of lymphedema in patients treated with or without MLD. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies that we reviewed was poor. Based on the results of our meta-analysis, we cannot recommend the addition of MLD to compression therapy for patients with breast-cancer-related lymphedema.
The remaining sources are primary or promotional.
Based on this reading of the sources I will
I will not edit the history section as it is OK to report what primary sources say about the subject in this section. I also won't edit the information on certification in the "Current practice" section as this is factual and accurate.
many thanks Edaham ( talk) 03:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw a paragraph with oddly formatted sourcing plus an issue with the dating (the phrase "About 20 years later" needs to be a date). I started to fix that when I realized the sources were all from the same people, named Godoy, and was two self-published books plus one paper published on line that's been cited twice by others. There is little evidence their techniques or methods have been peer reviewed or widely used/studied/cited.
An article on the National Cancer Institute's web site on Lymphedema seems to be fairly comprehensive and has a section on Manual lymphedema therapy. They do not cite Godoy. I did a broader search using Google for site:cancer.gov "Godoy" which returns 10 hits but all of them were for other people named Godoy.
The paragraph I removed was:
The "[5-7]" sources had been appended to the bottom of the article as:
Here are wikified sources in case someone finds WP:RS secondary, not primary sources for the Godoy's work:
There is also a WP:COI issue in that the text about Godoy method was added by User:Maria de Fátima Guerreiro Godoy. -- Marc Kupper| talk 05:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This documentation needs attention from an expert in Alternative medicine. The specific problem is: The article's lede did not seem to accurately summarize what was written in the sources. See the
talk page for details. (May 2017) |
This Article presents nothing but hypotheses / suppositions-- and those are not adequately explored. I think Freud did a better job of obfuscating; he fooled a number of people for a number of years.
Science has a history of over-representation of results and folly; And *sciences* relating to human health are probably the worst offenders.
In contrast, the endeavor known as engineering can usually demonstrate its achievements. Mousetraps work; so do A-bombs. TheLordSayeth ( talk) 14:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
What the sources actually say.
There are three sources in this article that appear to brush close to the standards required by wp:medrs this is what they say
It concludes: Manual lymphatic drainage techniques remain a clinical art founded upon hypotheses, theory, and preliminary evidence. Researchers must strive to clarify the biophysical effects that underpin its various proposed therapeutic applications in the human organism. Randomized controlled trials and longitudinal prospective cohort studies are required to establish the efficacy of MLDTs in producing positive outcomes for patients rehabilitating from sports-related injuries.
It concludes: Some evidence suggests that treatment involving a combination of compression therapy and manual lymph drainage yields reduced edema volume compared to compression therapy alone if volume is measured directly after the conclusion of manual lymph drainage (Evidence grade 3)*. There is no evidence to show that this effect is permanent. Further randomized controlled trials of sufficient size should be conducted – where treatment effects could be studied more closely in both the short and long term – before a combination of compression therapy and manual lymph drainage can be recommended.
It concludes: In conclusion, our meta-analysis indicated that the addition of MLD to compression and exercise therapy for the treatment of lymphedema after axillary lymph-node dissection for breast cancer is unlikely to produce a significant reduction in the volume of the affected arm. We found no significant difference in the incidence of lymphedema in patients treated with or without MLD. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies that we reviewed was poor. Based on the results of our meta-analysis, we cannot recommend the addition of MLD to compression therapy for patients with breast-cancer-related lymphedema.
The remaining sources are primary or promotional.
Based on this reading of the sources I will
I will not edit the history section as it is OK to report what primary sources say about the subject in this section. I also won't edit the information on certification in the "Current practice" section as this is factual and accurate.
many thanks Edaham ( talk) 03:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw a paragraph with oddly formatted sourcing plus an issue with the dating (the phrase "About 20 years later" needs to be a date). I started to fix that when I realized the sources were all from the same people, named Godoy, and was two self-published books plus one paper published on line that's been cited twice by others. There is little evidence their techniques or methods have been peer reviewed or widely used/studied/cited.
An article on the National Cancer Institute's web site on Lymphedema seems to be fairly comprehensive and has a section on Manual lymphedema therapy. They do not cite Godoy. I did a broader search using Google for site:cancer.gov "Godoy" which returns 10 hits but all of them were for other people named Godoy.
The paragraph I removed was:
The "[5-7]" sources had been appended to the bottom of the article as:
Here are wikified sources in case someone finds WP:RS secondary, not primary sources for the Godoy's work:
There is also a WP:COI issue in that the text about Godoy method was added by User:Maria de Fátima Guerreiro Godoy. -- Marc Kupper| talk 05:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)