Talk:Feldenkrais Method
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feldenkrais Method article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I've updated the definition with seven varied sources, from journals, to books, to articles, to websites that broadly locate, or categorize, FM within the field of Somatics. These sources are not superseded by one Australian systematic review, as WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims not definitions, categorizations, types, or kinds of movement practices, some of which, like Yoga and Tai chi, date back thousands of years. FM, by its own definition, and that of many others, is a somatic practice. If there's a dispute in the sources, we describe the debate, we don't ignore it. Ocaasi t | c 19:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overciting, especially at the beginning of an article, is a red flag. One good reference is all we need. If none exist, then the content probably should not be at the beginning of the article, nor presented with Wikipedia's voice.
- Judging by the references, it appears to be an in-world term, so a POV vio. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- These are seven broad and varied RS. So, "in-world" compared to what? What do you mean by that term? Ocaasi t | c 18:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
So, "in-world" compared to what?
Compared to a perspective where Wikipedia's voice is valid rather than alt-med viewpoints, especially those where there's a conflict of interest. As I said, I'm concerned about the use of Wikipedia's voice. I'll add that I have FRINGE and NOT concerns with the choice of references and the weight given them. I hope that answers your questions.- Two questions for you:
- Why are seven references needed?
- Why are sources from within the Feldenkrais world needed? Within the alt-med world? --Hipal (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- These are seven broad and varied RS. So, "in-world" compared to what? What do you mean by that term? Ocaasi t | c 18:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Efficacy Contradiction
[edit]This article contains two sentences that can't both be right:
- 1) "There is no medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method improves health outcomes..." (2015)
- 2) "There is limited evidence that workplace-based use of the Feldenkrais Method may help aid rehabilitation of people with upper limb complaints." (2019)
Either (2) is inaccurate, insufficient, or unreputable; or (1) can't be stated as a plain fact (especially in the lede). Ocaasi t | c 14:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- For context, what (2) says is "The Feldenkrais group showed a significant decrease in neck/shoulder complaints, compared with the physiotherapy and control groups...The authors postulated that this could be because Feldenkrais has a stronger focus on participants’ perceptions and experiences than physiotherapy, and that Feldenkrais has some features in common with relaxation and biofeedback techniques, which have been found to be effective at reducing pain...Feldenkrais should be implemented with caution, as only one study supported [this intervention]...more research needs to be conducted on these interventions." Ocaasi t | c 14:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Don't use Wikipedia's voice, and don't discard DUE points of view. --Hipal (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Efficacy Contradiction Part 2: The lede
[edit]We now have two superseding studies after the Australian 2015 systematic review which found "no evidence". Now we have n=2 of "yes/some evidence". How do we summarize this mix in the lede?
- "There is no medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method improves health outcomes..." (2015)
- "It is concluded that FM proved to be effective [for LBP], but not in all people with musculoskeletal disorders..." (Elsevier, 2017)
- "There is limited evidence that workplace-based use of the Feldenkrais Method may help aid rehabilitation of people with upper limb complaints." (Springer, 2019)
Ocaasi t | c 19:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Usual solution is to summarise by saying "no good evidence". Bon courage (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. We need to avoid SYN and POV problems. --Hipal (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- But there is limited evidence for benefit from three MEDRS quality sources. We don't just disregard them. Ocaasi t | c 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
IQWIG report
[edit]While responding to the above-mentioned RSN query, I came across this 2022 report on the effectiveness of Feldenkrais Method by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, which is not currently cited in the wikipedia article. Worth considering. Abecedare (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great find! It concludes:
- "For patients with Parkinson's disease, there is a hint of greater benefit of the Feldenkrais method in comparison with the passive strategy of an educational programme in the form of lectures. This benefit consists of improved mobility and health-related quality of life at the end of treatment."
- "In the comparison with active strategies, the available evidence for patients with chronic low back pain is inconsistent. Compared with an educational programme involving trunk stabilization exercises, there is a hint of greater benefit of the Feldenkrais method with regard to improved mobility and health-related quality of life at the end of the 5-week treatment period."
- "In comparison with back school, there is a hint of greater benefit of the Feldenkrais method with regard to pain reduction, but also a hint of lesser benefit of this method with regard to health-related quality of life after 3 months. However, no differences in effects were found directly at the end of therapy."
- "There is no hint of either long-term benefit of the Feldenkrais method or for its benefit in other therapeutic indications."
- "The question about the benefit of the Feldenkrais method in comparison with active strategies such as extensive physiotherapy generally remains open. Overall, little evidence is available. From an ethical perspective, the absence of evidence from RCTs is problematic for informed decision making but does not constitute evidence of an absent benefit."
- "Further research is needed, particularly regarding long-term effects of the Feldenkrais method, its application in various therapeutic indications, and in comparison with further active comparator therapies typically used in practice, e.g. physiotherapy." Ocaasi t | c 01:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the summary though none of the first three points belong in the wikipedia article since following the "benefit assessment" section in which the finding of the studies are summarized, the reports' authors conclude:
From the IQWiG perspective, the studies included in the benefit assessment do not allow drawing any conclusions on the benefit of Feldenkrais as a therapeutic intervention for treating movement disorders.
- As the report spells out in great detail, the quality of the reviewed studies in FM is so poor that any hint of benefits they found cannot be taken seriously. Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Outdated 2014 Effectiveness Sentence
[edit]Paragraph two of the Effectiveness section states:
- Proponents claim that the Feldenkrais Method can benefit people with a number of medical conditions, including children with autism, and people with multiple sclerosis. However, no studies in which participants were clearly identified as having an autism spectrum disorder or developmental disabilities have been presented to back these claims.[1]
Yet, there is a 2017 Elsevier published RCT of exactly such a study:
- Title: "The Feldenkrais Method improves functioning and body balance in people with intellectual disability in supported employment: A randomized clinical trial", Journal: Research in Developmental Disabilities, Publisher: Elevier. [2]
As such, the 2nd sentence needs to be augmented or removed to reflect the recent evidence.
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 22:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Collet-Klingenberg, Lana (October 31, 2014). "Treatment Intervention Advisory Committee Review and Determination" (PDF). Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 January 2017. Retrieved 2020-10-08.
In sum, it is the decision of the committee that Feldenkrais Therapy does not have a study in which participants were clearly identified as having an autism spectrum disorder or developmental disability and no authoritative bodies have recognized the treatment as having emerging evidence...
- ^ Torres-Unda, Jon; Polo, Vanesa; Dunabeitia, Iratxe; Bidaurrazaga-Letona, Iraia; García-Gil, María; Rodriguez-Larrad, Ana; Irazusta, Jon (2017-11-01). "The Feldenkrais Method improves functioning and body balance in people with intellectual disability in supported employment: A randomized clinical trial". Research in Developmental Disabilities. 70: 104–112. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2017.08.012. ISSN 0891-4222.
Ocaasi t | c 22:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's a study about people with 'mild to moderate' intellectual disabilities. It does not contradict lack of evidence about autism spectrum disorder or developmental disabilities. The current text is fine. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Developmental disability characterizes Intellectual Disability (ID) as a subtype, so I'm not sure it's fine. How could we reword it to be verifiably, medically in line with the available research? Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The claims that lack evidence are that Feldenkrais make the disability better somehow or 'benefit' people with severe disabilities.. The cite you've found is about how the exercise improves the gait and balance of elderly people with minor intellectual disability. It's comparing apples and oranges. There is no reason to change the article. MrOllie (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well then perhaps we should say that. "There's no evidence FM benefits people with severe developmental disabilities." That would at least be in line with the newer Elsevier RCT. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 01:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we don't want to update our wording to be verifiable with recent evidence, we can also remove the older 2014 source entirely. That would be appropriate since it's been 10 years and there's a lot of intervening research. Ocaasi t | c 01:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, can you show me where [...] FM Proponents even claim to cure MS? That is either unquoted (not there) or misattributed (from another uncited source). Ocaasi t | c 01:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- That you misread a later source does not make the 2014 source invalid. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a secondary issue; I never made the claim, but Wikipedia is saying FM proponents did. If there's no source for that, we have to take it out.
- Back to the original issue, the 2014 source is outdated with recent evidence and we're stating in plain language something directly contradicted by the research. That's not "just fine"; it's wrong and verifiably so.
- Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 01:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, it is apples and oranges. The two citations do not contradict each other, directly or otherwise. MrOllie (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you think ID is not part of DD? Because that's the implication, severe or not. Ocaasi t | c 01:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that a cite about improving the gait of elderly people is irrelevant, as I've explained already. But we are now repeating ourselves. I will wait a bit to see if any other editors care to weigh in. MrOllie (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thank you for the discussion. Ocaasi t | c 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that a cite about improving the gait of elderly people is irrelevant, as I've explained already. But we are now repeating ourselves. I will wait a bit to see if any other editors care to weigh in. MrOllie (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you think ID is not part of DD? Because that's the implication, severe or not. Ocaasi t | c 01:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, it is apples and oranges. The two citations do not contradict each other, directly or otherwise. MrOllie (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we don't want to update our wording to be verifiable with recent evidence, we can also remove the older 2014 source entirely. That would be appropriate since it's been 10 years and there's a lot of intervening research. Ocaasi t | c 01:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well then perhaps we should say that. "There's no evidence FM benefits people with severe developmental disabilities." That would at least be in line with the newer Elsevier RCT. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 01:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The claims that lack evidence are that Feldenkrais make the disability better somehow or 'benefit' people with severe disabilities.. The cite you've found is about how the exercise improves the gait and balance of elderly people with minor intellectual disability. It's comparing apples and oranges. There is no reason to change the article. MrOllie (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Developmental disability characterizes Intellectual Disability (ID) as a subtype, so I'm not sure it's fine. How could we reword it to be verifiably, medically in line with the available research? Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Two notes:
- Just add the qualifier "high-quality" before studies in the existing wikitext quoted above and update the citation to this 2017 re-review by the Wisconsin department of health services that uses that approach.
- FWIW: The Torres-Unda study is a low-qaulity RCT as attested by the IQWIG report which fults it for using no intervantion as comparator (p. 26), lack of blinding (p. 28), inadequate implemented the intention to treat principle (p. 28), high risk of bias (p. 34) and concluded that the study
offers no hint of benefit of the Feldenkrais method (...) versus no intervention at treatment end.
Clearly the Torres-Unda study shouldn't be cited or given any weight. Abecedare (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that @Abecedare. Ocaasi t | c 19:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Rewrite of lede
[edit]Prior to rewrite: [1]
The Feldenkrais Method is a type of exercise therapy devised by Israeli Moshé Feldenkrais (1904–1984) during the mid-20th century. The method is claimed to reorganize connections between the brain and body and so improve body movement and psychological state.[1][2]
Although there is no medical evidence that the Feldenkrais method improves health outcomes or if it is a cost-effective treatment option,[3] researchers do not believe it poses serious risks.[2]
Rewritten version: [2]
The Feldenkrais Method is a form of somatic education[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] "that integrates the body, mind and psyche through an educational model in which a trained Feldenkrais practitioner guides a client (the ‘student’) through movements with hands-on and verbally administered cues," according to Clinical Sports Medicine.[11] Also studied as an exercise therapy, it was devised by Israeli Moshé Feldenkrais during the mid-20th century. The method is claimed to reorganize connections between the brain and body and so improve body movement and psychological state.[1][2]
There is limited medical evidence that the Feldenkrais Method improves health outcomes in rehabilitation of people with upper limb complaints[12] and lower back pain.[13] There is very limited evidence FM benefits Parkinson's disease.[14] For other conditions, "there is no solid evidence base on which to make recommendations", and the cost-effectiveness is unknown.[3][14] Overall, the question of the benefit of FM remains open.[14] Researchers do not believe FM poses serious risks.[15]
[3] Accordingly in 2017 the Australian government identified the Feldenkrais Method as a practice that would not qualify for insurance subsidy, saying this step would "ensure taxpayer funds are expended appropriately and not directed to therapies lacking evidence".[16]
References
- ^ a b c Stalker D, Glymour C, eds. (1989). Examining Holistic Medicine. Prometheus Books. p. 373. ISBN 9780879755539.
a system of exercise therapy developed in the 1940s by former judo instructor Moshe Feldenkrais
- ^ a b c Singh, Simon; Ernst, Edzard (2008). Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. Bantam Press. p. 314. ISBN 978-0-59306-129-9. Cite error: The named reference "Corgi" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b c Baggoley, Chris (2015). Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance (PDF). Australian Government – Department of Health. ISBN 978-1-76007-171-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 August 2020. Retrieved 23 July 2020.
- See lay summary from Gavura, Scott (2015). "Australian review finds no benefit to 17 natural therapies". Science-Based Medicine. Archived from the original on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2022-10-15.
- ^ Meehan, Emma; Carter, Bernie (2021-01-25). "Moving With Pain: What Principles From Somatic Practices Can Offer to People Living With Chronic Pain". Frontiers in Psychology. 11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.620381. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 7868595. PMID 33569028.
- ^ Mullan, Kelly Jean (2014-10-02). "Somatics: Investigating the common ground of western body–mind disciplines". Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy. 9 (4): 253–265. doi:10.1080/17432979.2014.946092. ISSN 1743-2979.
- ^ Bhattacharya, Arup (2012-01-20). A Compendium of Essays on Alternative Therapy. BoD – Books on Demand. ISBN 978-953-307-863-2.
- ^ Fonow, Mary Margaret; Cook, Judith A.; Goldsand, Richard S.; Burke-Miller, Jane K. (June 2016). "Using the Feldenkrais Method of Somatic Education to Enhance Mindfulness, Body Awareness, and Empathetic Leadership Perceptions Among College Students: Journal of Leadership Education". Journal of Leadership Education. 15 (3): 116–130. doi:10.12806/V15/I3/R4.
- ^ "Somatics: The Yogas of the West". Yoga Journal. 2007-08-08. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
- ^ Wozny, Nancy (May 2012). "The Somatics Infusion: Dance Magazine". Dance Magazine. 86 (5): 36–39.
- ^ "What is the Feldenkrais Method of somatic education?". Feldenkrais Method. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
- ^ Audette, Joseph F.; Bailey, Allison (2007-01-01), Frontera, Walter R.; Herring, Stanley A.; Micheli, Lyle J.; Silver, Julie K. (eds.), "CHAPTER 23 - Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the Athlete", Clinical Sports Medicine, Edinburgh: W.B. Saunders, pp. 307–320, ISBN 978-1-4160-2443-9, retrieved 2023-12-10
- ^ a b Hoosain M, de Klerk S, Burger M (2018). "Workplace-Based Rehabilitation of Upper Limb Conditions: A Systematic Review". J Occup Rehabil (Systematic review). 29 (1): 175–193. doi:10.1007/s10926-018-9777-7. hdl:10019.1/103897. PMID 29796982. S2CID 44087712. Archived from the original on 21 April 2022. Retrieved 6 June 2022.
Workplace-based work hardening, case manager training and Feldenkrais should be implemented with caution, as only one study supported each of these interventions.
- ^ a b Mohan, Vikram; Paungmali, Aatit; Sitilertpisan, Patraporn; Henry, Leonard Joseph; Mohamad, Norazlin Binti; Kharami, Nurul Nadiah Binti (2017-02-01). "Feldenkrais method on neck and low back pain to the type of exercises and outcome measurement tools: A systematic review". Polish Annals of Medicine. 24 (1): 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.poamed.2016.10.003. ISSN 1230-8013.
- ^ a b c d Movement disorders: Is the Feldenkrais method effective? IQWiG Reports – Commission No. HT20-05. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: Extracts. Cologne (Germany): Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). 2023. PMID 36780406.
- ^ Singh, Simon; Ernst, Edzard (2008). Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. Bantam Press. p. 314. ISBN 978-0-59306-129-9.
- ^ Paola S (17 October 2017). "Homeopathy, naturopathy struck off private insurance list". Australian Journal of Pharmacy. Archived from the original on 18 April 2021. Retrieved 11 January 2018.
I think the lede should be rolled back, and we discuss what changes are needed. --Hipal (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the old version was superior to what we currently have in the article, which is too focused on jargon, misleading quotes, and unhelpful technicalities. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong disagree. The old version did not reflect updated evidence, it had a clear skeptical bias rather than an NPOV perspective on non-medical claims, and it was undersourced. It also incorrectly categorized the entire practice, as reflected in seven added RS. Ocaasi t | c 18:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can I ask what was wrong with "somatic" here? It seems more accurate. Anna (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's an in-universe word which lay readers (the audience we are meant to be writing for) will probably not understand. Bon courage (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can I ask what was wrong with "somatic" here? It seems more accurate. Anna (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
It can be linked. Pretty much all the sources given use the word "somatic". It's much more accurate. Anna (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's popular in-universe, but the quality independent sources outside the world of Feldenkrais tend not to (e.g. Australian DoH, WP:SBM). We should resist jargon. Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Non-RS blog source
[edit]Blogs are not reliable sources. I recommnend this is removed. re WP:RS Anna (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Blogs by established experts can be used as reliable sources, and David Gorski is an established expert on altmed. MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- That would be WP:RSP#ScienceBlogs. Great for WP:PARITY wrt fringe topics, such as this. Bon courage (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do wonder how much WP:PARITY applies when there are four systematic reviews present in that article that cover the subject with actual rigor. Are we really in need of skeptical potshots when there is actual science going on? Ocaasi t | c 12:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most altmeds have plenty of "science going on" even, still, homeopathy.[3] Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the pseudoscience, I'm talking about the mainstream WP:MEDRS reviews. Ocaasi t | c 12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The point is, there are mainstream MEDRS reviews of all kinds of woo. It doesn't stop them being woo. The idea that wiggling your legs will help with autism is just quackery, so some WP:PARITY on this seems appropriate & necessary. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the pseudoscience, I'm talking about the mainstream WP:MEDRS reviews. Ocaasi t | c 12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose that depends on if the 'actual science' is being published in junk journals such as the ones mentioned above in the 'Missing systematic reviews' talk section. MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, no, the FOUR systematic reviews we already cite IN the article. Ocaasi t | c 12:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Blog source in this case is criticising a blog, a blogger and a website, not Feldenkrais. David Gorski is not saying he knows anything about Feldrenkrais. Anna (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that rather the point? That the official blog of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston was routinely promoting dubious stuff. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Blog source in this case is criticising a blog, a blogger and a website, not Feldenkrais. David Gorski is not saying he knows anything about Feldrenkrais. Anna (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, no, the FOUR systematic reviews we already cite IN the article. Ocaasi t | c 12:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most altmeds have plenty of "science going on" even, still, homeopathy.[3] Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do wonder how much WP:PARITY applies when there are four systematic reviews present in that article that cover the subject with actual rigor. Are we really in need of skeptical potshots when there is actual science going on? Ocaasi t | c 12:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
As you know, the article is nothing to do with our personal opinions or impressions or tastes. This is to do with sourcing. The critique of the Anderson Centre's webpage. He's not an "expert" on Feldenkrais or anything to do with it Anna (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- He's an expert on fringe medicine, quackery and pseudoscience and he is "reliable" for his own view, no? Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Polish Annals of medicine source - moved from article for discussion
[edit]Is this source RS/MEDRS? This journal seems not to be in PUBMED let alone MEDLINE-indexed, and has no impact factor? Since it seems to be making somewhat exceptional claims, it would need to be a good source to stay.
Material moved from article
|
---|
A 2017 systematic review in the Polish Annals of Medicine found that a: "positive effect following FM among neck and [low back pain] disorders was reported by all of the studies, some of good quality, it is concluded that FM proved to be effective, but not in all people with musculoskeletal disorders."[1] |
References
- ^ Mohan, Vikram; Paungmali, Aatit; Sitilertpisan, Patraporn; Henry, Leonard Joseph; Mohamad, Norazlin Binti; Kharami, Nurul Nadiah Binti (2017-02-01). "Feldenkrais method on neck and low back pain to the type of exercises and outcome measurement tools: A systematic review". Polish Annals of Medicine. 24 (1): 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.poamed.2016.10.003. ISSN 1230-8013.
Bon courage (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, so Elsevier isn't a sufficiently mainstream publisher now? Are we SURE we're not moving the goalposts? Ocaasi t | c 13:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- No publisher is reliable all the time for all topics, especially in the medical space. Since I highly doubt anyone has ever claimed that, the goalposts are right where they've always been. MrOllie (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't buy it, @MrOllie. Dismissing this source looks like just cherry-picking. Ocaasi t | c 13:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is not 'cherry picking' to point out that a journal isn't MEDLINE-indexed, which has been a part of WP:MEDRS for years. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I asked if it's reliable since by the usual measures it seemingly isn't (e.g. MEDLINE indexing, some impact factor). Are there mitigating factors? Maybe it was "cherry picked" to say something positive about FM (which would be bad). We do have some good MEDRS on this topic, so there is really no need for barrel scraping wrt evidence. Bon courage (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was published by Elsevier.
It's in PubMed?. It's a 7 year-old systematic review. It's been cited by 12 other papers. These are the kinds of things MEDRS explicitly looks for. WP:MEDRS does not mention Impact Factor at all. We don't remove it just because it says something good about "woo". It's not the bottom of the barrel; it's the middle of the cream :) Ocaasi t | c 13:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)"It's in PubMed"
← well that's generally not enough, but it's a start for investigating further. What is the PMID? Bon courage (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)- I am wrong, it's not in PubMed. I think I misread POAMED. Apologies for the mistake. It's in Scopus, EMBASE, and Academic Search Complete. [4] Ocaasi t | c 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oooh, that MIAR site looks useful; didn't know about that. For the question at hand though, I think the Scopus entry[5] confirms this source falls comfortably below the level we should be looking for, especially given that we have some other, better, sources about evidence, and that this Polish source is saying something which is somewhat surprising. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am wrong, it's not in PubMed. I think I misread POAMED. Apologies for the mistake. It's in Scopus, EMBASE, and Academic Search Complete. [4] Ocaasi t | c 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was published by Elsevier.
- I don't buy it, @MrOllie. Dismissing this source looks like just cherry-picking. Ocaasi t | c 13:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the journal is no longer with Elsevier. But no, Elsevier has published plenty of crap in its time (profit is all; academic integrity is nothing). Remember Homeopathy (journal)? Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- No publisher is reliable all the time for all topics, especially in the medical space. Since I highly doubt anyone has ever claimed that, the goalposts are right where they've always been. MrOllie (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics