This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Osteopathy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Osteopathy was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 25, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The sentence in the lead, "People practicing osteopathy are referred to as osteopathic practitioners" is inaccurate and contradicts two of the cited sources (the link to the third source appears to be dead). Non-physician, manipulation-only practitioners of osteopathy are referred to as osteopaths. Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine are referred to as osteopathic physicians. This is stated in the sources as well as the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's website ( http://www.aacom.org/become-a-doctor/about-om/US-vs-abroad). Both call themselves "DO's". In the United States, osteopaths are prohibited from referring to themselves as "DO's" to avoid being confused with osteopathic physicians. SympatheticResonance ( talk)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: FunkMonk ( talk · contribs) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This article has way too paragraphs without citations and too many maintenance tags, so I have to quickfail it. Medical articles have higher standards than other articles. -- FunkMonk ( talk) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the whole subject of osteopathy is confused as it is fundamentally quackery trying to gain recognition for its own ends and this is reflected in the article, but as an alternative medicine with no cited efficacy, how can there be recognised medical degrees and such titles as osteopathic physicians in various jurisdictions?
The opening paragraph describes Osteopathy as being an alternative medicine. An alternative medicine (from the Wikipedia article) is any non proven practice attempting to provide medical outcomes. The article goes on to describe Osteopathy as originating from assumptions (my précis) rather than medical facts. In the efficacy section, no significant examples are provided of provable efficacy.
As there is no proven efficacy of osteopathy using conventional medical and scientific methods, like double blind trials etc. how can there be medical degrees in osteopathy and osteopathic physicians in various jurisdictions? The article also states that osteopathy has evolved into 2 branches. The differences between the 2 branches are poorly described.
The terms medical degree and a physician would imply recognition by the governing bodies in the various national jurisdictions and this is stated in various places.
Some jurisdictions, like Germany, recognise many alternative medical practices. If this is the case, where osteopathy (or a particular branch of it) is recognised in particular jurisdictions, the fact that these particular jurisdictions also recognise other alternative medicines should be stated.
The only other range of subjects, which I can think of that degrees are awarded for at university level, which are based on belief without facts are religions.
Since there is no proven efficacy, but osteopathy or parts of it appears to be accepted by many medical bodies, can it actually be classed a religion?
Alternatively, maybe there are other reputable studies which do prove efficacy, and / or they only apply to particular areas of osteopathy, but if such studies exist, they should be described in the efficacy section.
Can someone make the article clearer, particularly wrt my points above? It has probably grown untidy and confusing over the years. Lkingscott ( talk) 11:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
It is interesting that you frame osteopathy in such a derogatory light whereas the Wikipedia on Physiotherapy praises it as an evidence based form of complementary medicine. Are you aware that Osteopaths in Australia complete a 5 year double degree and treat/manage patients using education, exercise rehabilitation and manual therapy techniques based on the most current biopsychosocial model. Almost identically to how physios treat and manage patients however you will claim that Osteopathy is Pseudoscience. If you are worried about citations there is plenty of peer reviewed evidence that education in combination with exercise helps manage conditions 202.7.239.156 ( talk) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Instead of arguing with you, I think it would be more constructive if you turn your energies toward improving the section about Australia. Use good sources and document the stuff that isn't mentioned. Maybe after that's done it will be easier to figure out a better approach. I'd like to see a list of the modalities you use. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Kuczynski JJ, Schwieterman B, Columber K, Knupp D, Shaub L, Cook CE (December 2012). "Effectiveness of physical therapist administered spinal manipulation for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature". International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 7 (6): 647–62. PMC 3537457. PMID 23316428.
This was used by wiki to support effectiveness of Physical therapy spinal manipulation in the Physiotherapy wiki page: If it meets guidelines for wiki would it not be suitable in the effectiveness section for Osteopathy considering spinal manipulation is employed by Osteos the exact same as it was used in the study. 202.7.238.198 ( talk) 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
To allow this article to remain, with the first statement describing osteopathy as a 'pseudoscience', is unjustified and damaging to a recognised and valuable profession, and to the patients we support. Please see the following links https://www.england.nhs.uk/ahp/role/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/osteopathy/ 88.202.147.91 ( talk) 18:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Please could you change the opening paragraph:
Osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone', and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.
To remove the word 'pseudoscientific' so that it reads:
Osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone', and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') is a system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.
The reasons the word should he removed are as follows:
- There are no other significant recognised healthcare professions listed on wikipedia which are described in this way. So it appears that Osteopathy has been unfairly singled out for a description which could be construed as making it equivalent to less reputable pseudoscientific medicine. Equivalent professions to Osteopathy include Chiropractic, Physiotherapy and Massage. - There are no other reputable online references which define Osteopathy using this word. - Non-American Osteopaths qualify with a 4 year university degree which includes many identical subjects to those learned by the medical profession including anatomy, physiology, pathology and pharmacy. So using the word 'psuedoscientific' as the opening description is misleading and inaccurate. - The opening paragraph also states that Osteopathy is an alternative medicine, which is sufficient in itself to allow the reader to understand that it sits apart from the central body of standard medical practice. Jonathan Boxall ( talk) 13:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Study showed: Decreased length of stay in the hospital of approximately 1 day Decreased duration of IV ABx Decreased tachypneic resp rate Decreased incidence of respiratory failure Decreased incidence of death
Please include this in the efficacy area. 66.252.200.62 ( talk) 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
it says it's not government regulated, then it says you need to register in private schools. If it's not regulated, you don't need any education, and could just teach yourself or make it up as you go... 64.110.254.75 ( talk) 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Osteopathy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Osteopathy was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 25, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The sentence in the lead, "People practicing osteopathy are referred to as osteopathic practitioners" is inaccurate and contradicts two of the cited sources (the link to the third source appears to be dead). Non-physician, manipulation-only practitioners of osteopathy are referred to as osteopaths. Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine are referred to as osteopathic physicians. This is stated in the sources as well as the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's website ( http://www.aacom.org/become-a-doctor/about-om/US-vs-abroad). Both call themselves "DO's". In the United States, osteopaths are prohibited from referring to themselves as "DO's" to avoid being confused with osteopathic physicians. SympatheticResonance ( talk)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: FunkMonk ( talk · contribs) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This article has way too paragraphs without citations and too many maintenance tags, so I have to quickfail it. Medical articles have higher standards than other articles. -- FunkMonk ( talk) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the whole subject of osteopathy is confused as it is fundamentally quackery trying to gain recognition for its own ends and this is reflected in the article, but as an alternative medicine with no cited efficacy, how can there be recognised medical degrees and such titles as osteopathic physicians in various jurisdictions?
The opening paragraph describes Osteopathy as being an alternative medicine. An alternative medicine (from the Wikipedia article) is any non proven practice attempting to provide medical outcomes. The article goes on to describe Osteopathy as originating from assumptions (my précis) rather than medical facts. In the efficacy section, no significant examples are provided of provable efficacy.
As there is no proven efficacy of osteopathy using conventional medical and scientific methods, like double blind trials etc. how can there be medical degrees in osteopathy and osteopathic physicians in various jurisdictions? The article also states that osteopathy has evolved into 2 branches. The differences between the 2 branches are poorly described.
The terms medical degree and a physician would imply recognition by the governing bodies in the various national jurisdictions and this is stated in various places.
Some jurisdictions, like Germany, recognise many alternative medical practices. If this is the case, where osteopathy (or a particular branch of it) is recognised in particular jurisdictions, the fact that these particular jurisdictions also recognise other alternative medicines should be stated.
The only other range of subjects, which I can think of that degrees are awarded for at university level, which are based on belief without facts are religions.
Since there is no proven efficacy, but osteopathy or parts of it appears to be accepted by many medical bodies, can it actually be classed a religion?
Alternatively, maybe there are other reputable studies which do prove efficacy, and / or they only apply to particular areas of osteopathy, but if such studies exist, they should be described in the efficacy section.
Can someone make the article clearer, particularly wrt my points above? It has probably grown untidy and confusing over the years. Lkingscott ( talk) 11:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
It is interesting that you frame osteopathy in such a derogatory light whereas the Wikipedia on Physiotherapy praises it as an evidence based form of complementary medicine. Are you aware that Osteopaths in Australia complete a 5 year double degree and treat/manage patients using education, exercise rehabilitation and manual therapy techniques based on the most current biopsychosocial model. Almost identically to how physios treat and manage patients however you will claim that Osteopathy is Pseudoscience. If you are worried about citations there is plenty of peer reviewed evidence that education in combination with exercise helps manage conditions 202.7.239.156 ( talk) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Instead of arguing with you, I think it would be more constructive if you turn your energies toward improving the section about Australia. Use good sources and document the stuff that isn't mentioned. Maybe after that's done it will be easier to figure out a better approach. I'd like to see a list of the modalities you use. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Kuczynski JJ, Schwieterman B, Columber K, Knupp D, Shaub L, Cook CE (December 2012). "Effectiveness of physical therapist administered spinal manipulation for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature". International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 7 (6): 647–62. PMC 3537457. PMID 23316428.
This was used by wiki to support effectiveness of Physical therapy spinal manipulation in the Physiotherapy wiki page: If it meets guidelines for wiki would it not be suitable in the effectiveness section for Osteopathy considering spinal manipulation is employed by Osteos the exact same as it was used in the study. 202.7.238.198 ( talk) 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
To allow this article to remain, with the first statement describing osteopathy as a 'pseudoscience', is unjustified and damaging to a recognised and valuable profession, and to the patients we support. Please see the following links https://www.england.nhs.uk/ahp/role/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/osteopathy/ 88.202.147.91 ( talk) 18:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Please could you change the opening paragraph:
Osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone', and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.
To remove the word 'pseudoscientific' so that it reads:
Osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone', and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') is a system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.
The reasons the word should he removed are as follows:
- There are no other significant recognised healthcare professions listed on wikipedia which are described in this way. So it appears that Osteopathy has been unfairly singled out for a description which could be construed as making it equivalent to less reputable pseudoscientific medicine. Equivalent professions to Osteopathy include Chiropractic, Physiotherapy and Massage. - There are no other reputable online references which define Osteopathy using this word. - Non-American Osteopaths qualify with a 4 year university degree which includes many identical subjects to those learned by the medical profession including anatomy, physiology, pathology and pharmacy. So using the word 'psuedoscientific' as the opening description is misleading and inaccurate. - The opening paragraph also states that Osteopathy is an alternative medicine, which is sufficient in itself to allow the reader to understand that it sits apart from the central body of standard medical practice. Jonathan Boxall ( talk) 13:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Study showed: Decreased length of stay in the hospital of approximately 1 day Decreased duration of IV ABx Decreased tachypneic resp rate Decreased incidence of respiratory failure Decreased incidence of death
Please include this in the efficacy area. 66.252.200.62 ( talk) 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
it says it's not government regulated, then it says you need to register in private schools. If it's not regulated, you don't need any education, and could just teach yourself or make it up as you go... 64.110.254.75 ( talk) 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)